HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 21, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:12 p.m., Tuesday, September 21,
2004, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Cheek, Beard, Williams,
Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Larry Carnes.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH (August):
A. Ms. Olivia Mickalonis
Trees and Landscape Division of Public Works, Operations Manager
DELEGATIONS:
B. Mr. Tony Kennelly (Requested by Commissioner Barbara Sims)
Re: Memorial Ceremony for September 11, 2005.
C. Mr. Stanley Hawes
Re: Public safety issues pertaining to the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department.
(Beginning of tape 1)
Mr. Hawes: - the City of Augusta. It’s been a long time, the past year, it’s been
[inaudible] discussion and different groups and organizations that I’ve been part of and also just
folks from every walk of life. Lately, there’s been a rash of problems that we’ve been faced
with, that we’ve been trying to deal with the Sheriff with. We’ve been [inaudible], we’ve had
our little knock-down, drag-outs about it. It sort of becomes apparent that the best thing for us to
do is to come before this body and try to get some sort of semblance of rectifying this situation
throughout Richmond County. From south Augusta, I have some other folks that’s from south
Augusta and some folks from west Augusta and some folks from downtown Augusta, throughout
the community. It’s a sentiment that we all, we all, the regular, everyday, walk of life folks like
me, like these folks that are sitting out here, want to echo, that we really feel like we have a
problem with patrol coverage in Richmond County. I don’t know all the schematics about it, but
in our constant dealing with the Sheriff, it becomes apparent that if we did have coverage, if we
did have coverage, at least it would be solved, part of the problem, that people would see the
presence of policemen out in the street. If you come from a community like mine, you see that
1
every day, day in and day out. We have problems [inaudible], we have break-ins, we have drug
dealers on the street, and that’s just not in the inner city. I live in the inner city, but one thing I
can say is that the inner city is not the worst part of town to be in when it come to violence.
There is a problem in south Augusta. And as you know recently we started hearing of exposure
to the problems in west Augusta. There are people throughout, regular everyday folks that do
not have the luxury of going into a gated community, people who do not have the luxury of
going, stay outside of this city, but people from south Augusta on down through east Augusta,
everybody has the same sentiment. We don’t have enough patrol coverage in Richmond County.
I did not come down here with a message for the sheriff, because we’ve been on him long
enough. Basically what I want to do is just let you all know, be aware of and ask of you to
please, please look into this situation, because it’s a problem. Just the other day, just like you,
Mr. Mays, somebody tried to steal my father’s automobile, which I was driving, and I had to
physically take matters into my own hands. I have a wife and kid at home. I do not plan on
having to be the person who take care of this person who probably was on drugs, but I had to do
what I had to do. I couldn’t call the sheriff cause I had to act within that minute. But it became
apparent to me that it is a problem, cause I walked around all this time thinking that it’s not
going to happen to me. Then it happened to me. There are people that are in all of you all’s
district that I have talked to that have had problems. And if you don’t know it’s a problem, talk
to your constituents, those folks who have got to be on that front line when that time comes,
when they get robbed, when somebody’s child gets shot, when somebody got to walk past a drug
dealer, the fears that they have. If you can reach inside of their heads, average, everyday folks, if
you can reach inside their heads and see and feel what they feel, what we feel, cause I’m part of
that now. I feel the same. I’ve just about gotten up to here. So hopefully with what we learned
from the sheriff, this is what we were told, is that he needs more on his budget to take care of his
patrol, to get more patrolmen on the streets. That’s the reason why I bring it to this body, to at
least look into this matter, even if it means working with the sheriff or working with other
citizens or forming some citizens group to tackle this problem, cause as you know, our kids –
and I know my time is running out – our kids is having a serious problem in schools. We are
having to pull people and go over there and take care of them. I have a kid, 12 years old, that’s
in middle school. I got over there all the time. Some of you who know me know I be at my
kid’s school. Those kids have a problem at school, which the Board of Education is going to
have to take care of and trying to work with, but they also have a problem outside of the schools.
So I bring it to you to let you know. It’s a problem that’s already here and with those kids
coming up, it’s a problem that’s brewing. That’s not the cure-all, but we need to start getting
some semblance of order in Richmond County, and then we can start working on the other part
of the problem. That’s a deterrent. Then we can work on other deterrents, and hopefully – my
challenge to the citizens also is that we get more involved and start standing up and saying well,
we need to do something to help make sure our kids are not going in that direction. So hopefully
I’ve brought a message that you all might take to heart and decide that we need to start working
on this cause this is, this is more of a need in my eyes and other people’s eyes. It is more of a
need and a necessity coming from our government than just things that we want. I appreciate
your time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you for your presence today, President Hawes. I know you
are no stranger to this chamber. You’re here on behalf, many times, from not just Laney-Walker
2
Neighborhood Association, but of other neighborhoods as well. I’m going to yield to the former
alliance president, in fact, [inaudible] here in Richmond County, now commissioner,
Commissioner Colclough, for comments and possibly for a motion for a suggestion at this time.
Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I understand what you’re saying, Mr. Hawes, and I share your sentiments
with you. One of the things I think might be helpful since you mentioned south Augusta, inner
city, west Augusta, that we invite the sheriff to come out to the alliance meeting the first of the
month and then get some answers from him, because the alliance do have members from all over
the city and then because the crime is spreading and the problem is getting larger, I think those
folks who represent the communities from a standpoint of being neighborhood association
presidents, which covers a great deal of folks, needs to come out there and address them
[inaudible]. I understand he’s staying he’s needing more deputies, but the fact is I think if he can
come out to the alliance meeting and these same questions are posed to him, how he’s going to
handle the crime problem, how he’s going to handle the drug problems in these communities,
which is exploding, I think that would be one of the things that I think [inaudible] get an answer
to. I’m not going to make a motion at the moment, Mr. Chairman, because Mr. Cheek has his
hand up down there. He is a former member of the alliance, also. We also have two members of
the alliance sitting in the audience here.
Mr. Hawes: They came with me.
Mr. Colclough: You brought them. I knew you brought them. But I think the alliance,
the alliance meeting is another appropriate spot for the sheriff to be at, so he can kind of respond
I need more deputies, but respond to some of your requests for more patrolmen on the street.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Cheek on the other end at this time, then I’ll come back and make a
motion.
th
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Before I recognize my colleague from the 6, I would like
to say that when we have such a meeting, I think it’s important that not just the sheriff come, but
also that we as commissioners are there so that we can have a complete dialogue, and in terms of
trying to work together on this problem, rather than just be a pointed situation with the sheriff,
one of entire cooperation with the local government, the sheriff’s department and with the
neighborhood association so that we are together on the suggestions. We realize that money
cannot cure everything and we cannot have a deputy on every corner. But I think in terms of
plans and how you move from that point, it’s important that we all share in that and that we
provide a positive outlook on what we’re trying to do. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Several months ago, this body voted to
create a committee composed of city entities, sheriff’s department, school board and other
groups, and tasked our human relations to basically develop that committee to begin to address
problems with gangs and crime within our schools and neighborhoods and communities. To my
knowledge, for whatever reason, that has never really gotten off the ground. It’s a shame that we
had to wait until we had such violence occurring in schools and communities that we go back
and revisit this. I had hoped that we had made progress on that committee well beyond where
3
we’re at today. The things that concerns me, and I’ll say this once again, the sheriff’s
department is a part of the solution, but organized neighborhoods, crime watches, our code
enforcement sections, our marshal’s department, our schools, all of us have to work in a task
force type manner to address these problems within our neighborhoods, communities and
schools, work together as one for this city. That is something that all of these subordinate task
forces, piecemeal task forces, two and three different portions of that entire package, will only be
able to address in piecemeal. Again, I’m going to go back to say that we’ve got a lot of people in
this city working very hard in a lot of different areas, but we’re not working well together. We
need, and this board voted and approved this committee, commission, I forget the language, to be
formed. We need not a partial board with partial elements of the entire puzzle. We need the
entire, comprehensive governing forces and all elements of governing forces within the city, as
well as including neighborhoods, neighborhood presidents, crime watches across the board in
order to get a handle on this situation. We can do one of two things. We can continue to do as
we did back when gangs came up and several groups came in and said we don’t have a problem
and stick our heads in the sand, or we can admit that we have a problem, maybe not as major as
some cities, but we have the beginnings of a problem, and do as a famous deputy once said, “nip
it in the bud.” But it’s going to take a combined and coordinated effort of this city, which should
take the leadership role in coordinating the committee, to put together all of those elements and
begin to work target areas and then spread the successes throughout the remainder of the
community. One of the things I want to say about the alliance is, the neighborhood alliance has
done something very wonderful in that it’s gone out to neighborhoods that weren’t organized. It
had willing citizens. Some of them were combat zones four years ago. With the assistance and
help of organized crime watch, neighborhood cleanups, getting to know the neighbors and so
forth, those combat zones have now got safe streets with low or no drug activities. They’re
clean. And it’s all a result of organizing neighborhoods, letting neighbors know it’s not the
government’s total responsibility to be your caretakers. Neighbors need to look out for
neighbors, communities can best police themselves. But I would like to go back, rather than
make a motion, go back and get a status report on where that committee is that. Certainly I
hadn’t planned on holding hands and directing this effort myself, and I didn’t think that this body
needed to do that, but it’s a shame that we see several other committees popping up when this
one could have probably brought all the forces together to solve the problem and so far it has not
gotten off the ground, to my knowledge. But I agree with what you’re saying. A deputy on
every corner is probably something we can’t afford, but a good crime watch with some cameras
and some names and addresses can help the deputies put the right people in the right places. And
again, we can’t afford to wait until it gets totally bad. We’ve got a chance to take a small
problem and knock it out, and I think now is the time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Hawes, I think you can remember back a few years ago that what
Andy’s talking about, we did. [inaudible] was a big part of that [inaudible] crime watches and
being available at a moment’s notice [inaudible], so I think we need to go back to that method.
[inaudible] Walter Thomas was one of the people who had one of the greatest neighborhood
crime watches in the city. We had a relationship with the sheriff’s department where if we were
doing crime watch and we spotted something that looked out of the ordinary, we picked up the
4
phone and called the department, and within a matter of minutes a deputy was on the scene. I
think we need to look at going back to that method, you know, in trying to echo what we’ve
always echoed in the alliance, is that we need to formulate a good crime watch, neighborhood
crime watch, and be able to take over our own streets.
Mr. Hawes: Yes, sir, I understand. Could I say one more thing?
Mr. Colclough: Go ahead.
Mr. Hawes: In response to what you just said, that sounds good. Some neighborhoods
are not the same as others.
Mr. Colclough: I understand.
Mr. Hawes: For instance, my neighborhood is a walk through, drive through
neighborhood, and we get some of everybody’s trash.
Mr. Colclough: I know you do.
Mr. Hawes: They come down. About a year-and-a-half or two years ago, we had, well
[inaudible] coverage, we had what you call a floater. You’re aware of that, perhaps the folks out
here, some folks out here don’t. We had a floater that had been taken away, and I was told that
was because of the budget, that was taken away from us, so that meant that now after a several
years, a few years back, now when a patrolman stops somebody, he actually had to have some
type of backup on the way for his safety. So I mean if somebody comes from one area to
another, his coverage area is not covered. If something happens while he’s gone, somebody
from another coverage area has to go and it just goes around in circles. So we’ve lost, we
actually lost coverage in my area. I don’t know about anybody else, but some of the people have
told me we’ve lost coverage. But we didn’t lose all the criminals.
Mr. Colclough: We did, too. We lost – how many, Bobby, six deputies? We lost six
deputies out of one area. But I think there is a way we can meet with the sheriff and kind of help
formalize a plan where we can go back.
Mr. Hawes: I’m willing to do that and as far as my neighborhood association and some
of the members, also, I know that they will be willing to do that.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll be happy to help.
Mr. Hawes: We willing to act. That’s what we want to do. We want to act.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Hawes: Thank you.
5
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we receive this as information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any other discussion?
Mr. Colclough: And you will invite the sheriff to the meeting?
Mr. Hawes: I’ll personally do it for you.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Hawes: Cause we’re on the phone all the time.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, if we might – we’ve got some people here for
items that are probably on the regular agenda that are large delegations. If we could move
quickly and go through the consent agenda, what I want to do is we have guests for both the
consent and the regular agenda, what I’d like to do is to go ahead and get the consent agenda so
that those guests that are here for the consent, where there may not be any objection or
discussion, we can move through those quickly and we’ll still have the option of pulling the
items they wish to pull from the consent. We’ll take those items last and then move to the
regular agenda in between and to move to those that are here, our guests from the genera public,
into the agenda after we finish those that are on consent, in that order, if there be no objection,
you ladies and gentlemen of the body.
The Clerk:Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 25A. That’s
Yes, sir.
items 1 through 25A
. For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, as well as
alcohol petitions, I will read those, and if there are any objectors to any of those petitions, would
you please signify your objection by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-68 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Company requesting a Special Exception
in a R-1A (One-family Residential) Zone, to establish a construction trailer in Cameron
Subdivision per Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Galahad
Way, 400’ more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of Galahad Drive
intersects and contains .24 acres. (Part of Tax Map 53 Parcel 1.03 & 2) DISTRICT 3
6
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Z-04-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Natasha Gaines requesting a Special Exception, to
establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1713 Deer Chase
Lane and contains .32 acres. (Tax Map 152 Parcel 517). DISTRICT 4
5. Z-04-73 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Leonard Lifsey requesting a Special Exception, to
establish a sales trailer for The Hamptons Subdivision per Section 8-2(e) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located at 3130 Hampton Drive and contains .32 acres. (Tax Map 95-4 Parcel 4).
DISTRICT 5
6. Z-04-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of R. J. Bennett,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1727 Barton
Chapel Road and contains approximately 5 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel 83) DISTRICT 3
7. Z-04-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Bill Hiers requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1E (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) on property located
on 1813 Kissingbower Road and contains .27 acres. (Tax Map 57-3 Parcel 137.2)
DISTRICT 2
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Under the public service
portion of our agenda:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by Sunhee C. Yi for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Pope’s Grocery located at 830 Stevens Creek Rd.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request by Milin Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license
to be used in connection with Trulin Enterprises located at 2762 Tobacco Rd. District 4.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: None are so noted, Madame Clerk. Do any Commissioners wish to
pull any from the consent agenda? Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I wanted to pull item 2 and want to add with consent of the body to the
consent agenda item 32, 33 and 38.
The Clerk: 32, 33 –
7
Mr. Cheek: 32, 33 and 38.
The Clerk: 38.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any objections to the Commissioner’s suggestions of
those items, particularly item 32, 33 and 38 being transferred over to the consent agenda?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: On item 32, were we not supposed to get some more information back from
the attorney concerning that?
Mr. Shepard: You were, and Ms. Smith was unable to be here today. We had some
conversations, and I’d ask that that be deferred until next time. I have some of the information
that I wanted to get, but not all. She and I talked this morning. I think she’s not able to attend,
so if you could just defer that until next meeting, that would be the appropriate course on item
32.
Mr. Cheek: No objection.
Mr. Boyles: Does this put us in the position of delaying two more weeks?
Mr. Shepard: I plan to have a discussion during the meeting with some representatives
regarding that Warren Road project, Mr. Boyles, and if you want to reconsider that later I can do
that, but I need to introduce somebody from public works to the representative from Georgia
Power. I may have that for you before the end of the meeting.
Mr. Boyles: Before the end of this meeting? So that we –
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] pass the ordinance. I would like to hold the ordinance
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If we could have that information prior to [inaudible] in reference
to the ordinance, will you still need the director as well, or are you through with that portion of it
once that’s been done?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mays, the director indicated she couldn’t attend today.
The Clerk: She’s out of town.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, I guess what I’m trying to also say, and I follow up on what
probably my engineering services chairman has not said, and that’s to a point of the time frame
8
that we are working on with this and with these projects, that if there is someone else who is
going to be able to deal with that, or is that –
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I think so, but I need to, I need to have a conversation during the
course of the meeting on that particular item.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to get a little discussion on
.
number 6, if we could. Being in planning and zoning, I want to get some clarification on that
Also like to take item 26 off the regular agenda and put it on the consent agenda to be
approved.
I had some discussion with Mr. Patty and which we got those things straight. There
I wanted to take item 26 and put it on the
was no one that was particularly against it, so
consent agenda and approve.
The Clerk: To approve?
Mr. Williams: To approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just do one thing on that one, since we’re moving it from
regular to consent, is there anyone here to address item 26 other than the petitioner?
The Clerk: Want me to read it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah. If you would, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
26. Z-04-61– A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Lula Geter requesting a Special Exception to establish a
family personal care home, per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
th
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located 944 14 Avenue and containing
.16 acres. (Tax Map 72-4 Parcel 103). DISTRICT 2
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to this petition?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: None noted. If there be no objectors from the Commission, it
could be transferred to consent. Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: On item 33, there is no backup information in the record here. I’d like to
get a little discussion on it before we add it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this. If it’s, if it’s on bonds and it’s going to be brief
discussion, but I think if it’s going to get into detailed discussion, we need to just pull it off and
9
then discuss it by itself, cause what I’d like to do is try and go ahead on and move through these
items where there are no objectors and get through the delegation and get to the ones where
we’ve got folk here. Because we’re going to have to be the ones to make the decision on the
bond decisions that will not involve any of our guests, and if we’ve got questions on it, then let’s
just take it off consent and then just handle that during the regular Commission agenda.
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. 33 for the time being stays on regular. Commissioner
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Pull 3, please.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does that cover every Commissioner on this end to my right in
reference to – Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, let me be sure I’m clear on item 32, the Georgia Power
agreement. We’re going to leave that on the regular agenda, or move to consent, or I can pull it,
or what?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I was going to do was leave it on regular. That will allow the
attorney the time to possibly be able to get us some more information. It doesn’t take it off. I
think if it goes to consent, he doesn’t have that information we need right now, but this doesn’t
change its place, it just stays where it is. Give us an opportunity to discuss it before the day’s
over possibly.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That covers us on this end. How about to my left, on any other
items that may need to be pulled? Madame Clerk, if you could read the numbers of the ones to
be pulled for us, please?
The Clerk: Okay. Items to be pulled for further discussion, item 2, 3, 6 are being pulled.
Item 38 and 26 to approve the petition, is being added to the consent agenda. 38 and 26 to
approve the petition.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do the Commissioners have a question about what is contained in
the consent agenda? Everybody aware of the numbers that are in the consent agenda?
(CONSENT AGENDA)
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-68 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Company requesting a Special Exception
in a R-1A (One-family Residential) Zone, to establish a construction trailer in Cameron
10
Subdivision per Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Galahad
Way, 400’ more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of Galahad Drive
intersects and contains .24 acres. (Part of Tax Map 53 Parcel 1.03 & 2) DISTRICT 3
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Z-04-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Natasha Gaines requesting a Special Exception, to
establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1713 Deer Chase
Lane and contains .32 acres. (Tax Map 152 Parcel 517). DISTRICT 4
5. Z-04-73 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Leonard Lifsey requesting a Special Exception, to
establish a sales trailer for The Hamptons Subdivision per Section 8-2(e) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located at 3130 Hampton Drive and contains .32 acres. (Tax Map 95-4 Parcel 4).
DISTRICT 5
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7. Z-04-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Bill Hiers requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1E (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) on property located
on 1813 Kissingbower Road and contains .27 acres. (Tax Map 57-3 Parcel 137.2)
DISTRICT 2
8. ZA-R-166 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance,
thereby amending Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 26 to provide for
time limits for the initiation and reestablishment of uses permitted by Special Exception,
and to invalidate certain Special Exceptions previously granted.
9. FINAL PLAT – CAMERON SUBDIVISION, SECTION I – S-681-I – A petition by
Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl Homes, Inc., requesting final plat approval
for Cameron Subdivision, Section I. This residential subdivision is located off Belair Road,
west of Burdette Drive and contains 60 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve an organizational structure in the Recreation and Parks Department
to accommodate additional Senior Service responsibilities at a cost of $17,014 for the
remainder of 2004. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request by Sunhee C. Yi for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Pope’s Grocery located at 830 Stevens Creek Rd.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
12. Motion to approve a request by Milin Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license
to be used in connection with Trulin Enterprises located at 2762 Tobacco Rd. District 4.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
13. Motion to approve contracts with Georgia DOT for relocation of Taxiway C and
other projects. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
11
14. Motion to approve an Ordinance that will set forth rules and regulations to govern
the operation of junk yards, salvage yards and recycling facilities, and approve an
ordinance amending the ‘Administrative Fee Structure’ to include a regulatory fee for
businesses operating as junk yards, salvage yards and recycling facilities. (Approved by
Commission September 7, 2004 – second reading)
15. Motion to approve a request for Bessie Marks for a Fortune Tellers license to be
used in connection with Madame Belles located at 1625 Doug Barnard Pkwy. District 1
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 13, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
16. Motion to approve expansion of EDMS to Phase II Departments. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee September 13,004)
17. Motion to approve Municipal Code Corporation as the vendor to supply Augusta
with an Agenda Management System to track agenda items, meeting schedules, and
indexes, pending approval of contract by Information Technology Director & City
Attorney. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 13, 2004)
FINANCE:
18. Motion to approve refunds on six accounts from the Tax Assessors Office.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 13, 2004)
19. Motion to approve the abatement of tax balance on County property (Map 25-2,
Parcel 34.02). (Approved by Finance Committee September 13, 2004)
20. Motion to approve Cost Allocation Plan Update to be done by KPMG. (Approved
by Finance Committee September 13, 2004)
21. Motion to approve the abatement of the Garden City Rescue Mission of 2004
property taxes. (Approved by Finance Committee September 13, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve a request from Augusta area Rotary Presidents Council to
replace metal benches at Jessie Norman Amphitheatre with granite benches (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 13, 2004).
23. Motion to approve award of construction contract in the amount of $2,374,941.96 to
Blair Construction for the Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20” Water Main Project. Bid
Item: 04-103. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 13, 2004).
24. Motion to approve award of contract to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. in the
amount of $1,789,664.50 for the construction of the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Extension
Phase II. (Bid Item # 04-100) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 13,
2004).
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
25. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
September 7, 2004 and Special Called Meeting held September 13, 2004.
APPOINTMENT:
12
25A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Mark Capers to the Historic
Preservation Commission representing District 8.
PLANNING:
26. Z-04-61– A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Lula Geter requesting a Special Exception to establish a
family personal care home, per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
th
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located 944 14 Avenue and containing
.16 acres. (Tax Map 72-4 Parcel 103). DISTRICT 2
38. Motion to approve joint resolution between Augusta, Ga. and Richmond County
Board of Education in support of stated funding for the National Science Center.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair will entertain a motion for the approval of the consent
agenda.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being no
discussion, all in favor of approval of the consent agenda, with the exception of those being
pulled, will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 24]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 4-5, 7-23, 25-25A, 26, 38]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If we have covered your item during consent, you are welcome to
stay with us to an unknown hour. If not, you may be excused at this time if we’ve already
covered your agenda item. Thank you for sharing your time with us today. While we are
passing out, the chair is going to recognize Commissioner Grantham for the purpose of two to
three items that we have here that may be able to be combined and which we have delegations
for.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I had met this past week with the
interested parties in regards to agenda item number 27 and met with them with our attorney and
tried to find a reasonable conclusion to this problem and this project.
27. Z-04-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) 10’ buffer which conforms to the
side yard buffer requirements of the Tree Ordinance on east property line adjacent to lots in
Raintree Place Subdivision; 2) no access easement on same property line to Raintree Place
Subdivision; 3) no impervious materials to be used as parking lot surface; and the Owner of
13
the Club must record a deed restriction on his property agreeing to the following: A) provide
152 parking spaces on his property if lease expires or is terminated, or subject property does
not yield 80 spaces. Owner must agree to eliminate facilities if 152 parking spaces cannot be
provided; B) purchase and install signage for neighborhood within 300 feet of the Club
entrance in conformance with standards of Traffic Engineering; C) submit and implement a
written plan for traffic and parking control during tournament; and D) limit hours of
operation of the sports bar/restaurant to closing at 11:30 P.M.; a petition by William A.
Trotter, III, on behalf of ATC Development Corporation, requesting a Special Exception,
to establish a public parking area to support the Club at Rae’s Creek, per Section 8-2(b) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located on the south right-of-way line of Kamel Circle (dead end), 260 feet, more or less,
south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Kerry Place and Kamel Circle and
contains approximately 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcel 120) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would request and put in the form of a
motion that we temporarily table this item until we can have some discussion with the
interested parties that are here. I’d like to ask and entertain the parties from the Forest
Hills Racquet Club, Mr. Cutler if he’s here, also the neighborhood association, I believe Dr.
Bill Bloodworth and several of his neighbors are here, and would like just a couple of them
to come into the room so we can have a little further dialog in regards to this situation and
also if Mr. Bill Belangia or Mr. Woody Belangia is here I’d like for the two of them to meet
us over in the committee room, and then I think we can get this resolved and hopefully
bring you back a recommendation that this body can deal with.
If we have those people
here, I’d like to ask that the neighborhood get together and that the neighborhood send two
people in or three or whatever, but I don’t need a room full and also from the Forest Hills
Racquet Club association, as well as Mr. Cutler and his group to come on. Especially Mr.
Cutler. Would you pull that up?
Mr. Cutler: Richard Cutler, owner of the Racquet Club. I would ask before we do table
it that the chair recognize the number of people that are here today in favor of and in opposition
to the motion. Many of these people can’t stay here all afternoon.
Mr. Grantham: Well, I understand that, Mr. Cutler. I don’t think we are going to be in
there all afternoon. I think we can come back within a very reasonable time and have this taken
care of. And then, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to, after we get this resolved, is take up item 28
and item 30, as the next ones we’ll discuss. So if you’ll excuse us, I’d like to do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this. Before I get into, let me say this, before I get into
the excusing business, as long as I don’t lose a quorum out here while I’m excusing, I don’t mind
and I think the neighbors can go. We’ve done this before and I say that in a friendly [inaudible],
if I’m not going to lose over one Commissioner, if we cannot let staff go ahead and handle that to
a point and then relay to the Commission. I want to keep as many of y’all out here as I possibly
can so that we can move on with the other items that are there. The chair has no problem in
recognizing the numbers. We would do that count anyway at that time. I think you’re trying to
clear up a few things, which we’ve done this sometimes previously, sometimes able to do it here.
14
And we can go ahead and allow that to take place. That’s not a problem. But I would caution
you, though, that it’s still a recommendation, and usually these things can get worked out, that’s
good. If not, then a decision still has to be made one way or the other.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Ms. Sims: I’d just like to second the motion. I don’t think you have a second yet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s been motioned and properly seconded to, to table. And any
other Commissioners have any questions in reference to 28 on the tabling, which is a non-
debatable motion. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the
same.
Mr. Boyles: Did you say 28?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 27. Cause we had 27, 28, and the other ones. That’s fine.
Mr. Williams: Are we going to get a count, though, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as to how many
people are here for and against?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The reason why I’d rather not do that is because I don’t even know
what the motion is going to contain. Therefore, if they are working out something, it’s better that
they work it out, then the motion can be made. It may come back that they don’t agree on
anything, and so it may change the count as to who’s in favor and who’s against, depending on
what compromise they may be able to make. So that’s why. Past experiences teaches me if
you’re going to compromise on something, do the count after you know what you’re
compromising on. So if you all could go ahead and proceed to that end of the chamber to do
that, we will do that officially prior to bringing that back on and taking it off the table.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is one item that I think we can probably clear up pretty
quickly that was on consent that was pulled. The Commissioner from District 5 had pulled it. I
think there has been clarity on it, and the chair is going to recognize him at this time. That’s item
number 3 that was on consent.
3. Z-04-71 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Shiron Johnson Thomas requesting a Special
Exception, to establish Transition Housing per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3520
Postell Drive and contains .22 acres. (Tax Map 119 Parcel 518). DISTRICT 5
15
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was looking for some backup, some
so I’d
more information, but I got it from the parties involved, and we had no one objecting to it,
like to move that we pass it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve number 3.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we may be able to do the same with item 2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s on consent. If you want, if you want to hear this one, it was on
consent, I don’t have a problem with backing up and dealing with that. If there are, I don’t have
a problem in hearing it.
Mr. Cheek: Just a couple of questions and we may be able to dispense with it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk: You want me to read that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, item number 2.
The Clerk:
2. Z-04-70 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that the home is limited to 18 boys; a petition by
Richard Johnson requesting a Special Exception, to modify one of four conditions placed
on a Transition Housing Operation per Section 26-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1509 Brown Road
and contains 1.85 acres. (Tax Map 214 Parcel 6.04) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Cheek: The questions I have for that is the size of the home, the location in
proximity to the Brown Road/Old Waynesboro Road neighborhood area, what type of
supervision will be provided, and will these boys be staying there overnight?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think the petitioner and – whichever one of you all is going to
address this, I ask him to come forward.
16
Mr. Patty: The home is about 6700 square feet, and we approved a petition a couple of
years ago to allow him to have 11 boys in this home. There have been no problems since that
happened, and I think he wants to go from 11 to 16. That’s the purpose of the request.
Mr. Cheek: There’s not – and these are I guess youthful offenders that are coming out,
trying to get back into the world?
Mr. Patty: I’m going to let him address that one.
Mr. Johnson: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Restate the question.
Mr. Cheek: Question 1 is if we have 18 boys here, that’s a lot of boys. What type of
supervision will they have? Will they be staying there full time or overnight? Where is the
proximity as far as the Brown Road/Old Waynesboro Road area and all of those subdivisions?
Mr. Johnson: Currently the property is located probably in the middle of Brown Road
between Mike Padgett Highway and Old Waynesboro Road.
Mr. Cheek: The great big house? I know the one you’re talking about. Okay.
Mr. Johnson: We sit on – and as far as supervision, the question you asked about
supervision, I just want to remind the Commission that we are licensed by [inaudible], the State,
which we are very heavily regulated, which we are required to have a minimum staff in terms of
ratio, supervision, program for the boys, so we are very heavy regulated and supervision is
required upon us.
Mr. Cheek:
I guess my concern is with this density, especially of kids that have had
problems, if there isn’t constant supervision, you know, there could be negative spin-offs for the
surrounding community and it sounds to me like y’all have a good track record with turning
I motion for support.
these kids around, and so
Mr. Johnson: Also be reminded that the kids are boys that come to our home, they are
selected. Even though you have boys of various levels of care, need, behavior, so forth, we are
focusing on the primary level 1 and 2, which is the [inaudible] boys that misfortune fall upon
them, no parents. We are sure that the academics, schools, and so forth is taken care of, and
shelter. And hopefully that they will not get caught up in what is called education delinquent and
juvenile justice.
Mr. Cheek:
And there is such a need for that and positive influences in these kids’ lives
and it sounds to me like y’all are doing that with no negative impact to the surrounding
I make a motion to approve.
community.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
17
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there discussion on item 2?
Commissioner Jimmy Smith and Commissioner Bobby Hankerson on this end. Any other
Commissioners on that end? So go in that order.
Mr. Smith: I have noticed the housing in question and they have a very large lot, very
large house, and I’ve questioned some of the neighbors. They’ve not had any problems. I live
about two miles down the road from them and I think it’s a good operation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I just want to add to it. I been knowing this couple for many, many
years, Sunday school days when I was a little kid and I know that they, Mr. Johnson and Ms.
Johnson, are great mentors and they have interest in the community and especially young, young
people, young boys and young girls, and very diligent in their church activities and so forth. I
think this is a plus for these boys that they are taking in and I commend them for what they’re
doing. I do support it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any other questions? If not, we got a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you.
The Clerk: Do you need some clarification on 6, Mr. Williams? Do you need some
clarification?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: You want to take that one, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, since it’s on consent.
The Clerk:
6. Z-04-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of R. J. Bennett,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1727 Barton
Chapel Road and contains approximately 5 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel 83) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
18
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is someone here representing item number 6? And the chair also
recognizes you, Mr. Williams, I was trying to see if anybody was here concerning that one.
The Clerk: There is.
Mr. Graham: I’m a little surprised. My name is Lawson Graham, I’m an engineer. I’m a
little surprised. I’m involved with the Raes Creek meeting. George –
Mr. Patty: Barton Chapel Road.
Mr. Graham: Barton Chapel Road. That was Don Greene, wanting to have the storage
buildings, and he also wants to add a cabinet shop on that five acres that’s adjoining his storage
buildings that’s under construction now that we’ve already had approved and rezoned. It’s an
expansion of his land, adjoining land for more commercial uses.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and the reason I pulled this, sitting on planning and
zoning, we had a large number of neighbors to come down that was opposed to this. And Mr.
Patty might be able to help me, but I thought it was denied in planning and zoning. Maybe it
wasn’t. But what would this do the residents? And there was quite a few residents that came
out, George. Am I thinking the same one?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. We had two cases on that same side of Barton Chapel Road, and this
one is down toward the railroad and the other one was up toward Eidson Drive and across from
where [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: So this is not the same one?
Mr. Patty: No, it’s not the same way.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we approve, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on item
number 6? None being, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the
same.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Graham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Our planning director, Madame Clerk, wants to – he’s kind
of in between two places [inaudible] 27, asked me to hold if we could 28 and 30 for just a
moment, if we could. I want to go to 31 on the zoning.
19
The Clerk: 31?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t want to get one fellow in the contempt business so I’m
going to take 31 and send him downstairs to court.
The Clerk:
31. Z-04-80 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Johnston, Wilkin & Williams, on behalf of Geddes E.
Hernlen Sr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a
Special Exception to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception for a
convenience store per Section 21-2-(b) affecting property located on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Richmond Hill Road and Windsor Spring Road and contains 4.43
acres. (Tax Map 121 Parcel 22). DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You representing the petitioner, Bill?
Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, my name is Bill
Williams. My pleasure to represent Mr. Hernlen in this matter. This property has some recent
history with you folks. In October two years ago, 18 acres approximately of property at the
intersection of Richmond Hill and Windsor Spring Road was zoned for a shopping center. And
it was conditioned upon the fact that the plans that had been submitted were followed and that
the shopping center construction begin within two years. The folks putting it together had
options to purchase the property. One piece of the property was my client’s property,
approximately four acres out of the 18. That project fell through. They never started
construction so next month that conditional zoning will revert back to the residential zoning that
existed at the time. What we are asking you to do is to zone the four acres B-1 with a special
exception. My client has a contract with Enmark. There are Enmark representatives here today
who will, who would like to give you a presentation, some idea about what is going to go on that
property if it’s approved. And it only seems to me, it makes sense to me that if a 18-acre parcel
of land that was going to have a shopping center on it was compatible with the neighborhood,
that a four-acre parcel of land with a free-standing store on it is much more compatible with the
neighborhood. Now I didn’t come here to pick a fight. I came here to represent my client. But I
got to do my job and I got to say on the record, I have a position paper that explains his
constitutional rights that I have to raise in front of you. If I don’t, I can’t raise them later on.
And I’d like to submit that and make that part of the record. Then I won’t have to read it. Is that
agreeable to you?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Bill Williams: So I would - there weren’t any real objectors at the planning and
zoning meeting. The most vocal objector was Mr. Patty. And he was concerned about the lights
that were going to be from this property affecting the neighborhood. Well, again, if you got an
18-acre shopping center lit up, it’s going to light up a whole lot more than a four-acre, free-
20
standing store. There were a couple of guys from the VFW that were there who thought that for
some reason there was going to be a decel and accel lane put in front of the VFW, which it’s not.
So there really weren’t any objectors, as far as the public is concerned. And I’ve got a plat.
Does yours show it? If I might just turn it over to Dwight Harrison with Enmark, who can make
a presentation of what they are going to do and give you some idea about how the property is
situated.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, if I could, before you get into the presentation, let me see
one thing here, just a moment. From the planning commission’s side, Mr. Patty, and I noticed
Mr. Williams had mentioned that there were no objectors at your meeting. Are there any
objectors here now in reference to item 31? Okay, none noted, for the record. Is there anything
you wanted to inject at this point, and then we can get to the presentation or see if we need to
move into the presentation? I may want to hear from the Commissioners who have direct
representation in that area.
Mr. Patty: Well, first of all, I don’t know if it’s Mr. Williams’ math or his recollection is
the problem, but we did have two objectors. I counted two objectors at our meeting. This is not
the typical zoning case I bring over here that affects adjoining property owners and maybe one or
two other properties on either side. This is a landmark case. It may not appear to be, but if you
approve this zoning and you get a convenience store, high-end, you know, nice, clean, well-lit
convenience store like Enmark develops, at this location, it’s going to have a resounding effect
on the zoning on Richmond Hill Road all the way up to the overpass and probably Windsor
Spring from Bobby Jones Expressway out to where the current commercial development begins.
This is an area that’s – you would have to say is in transition, and probably single-family
residential is not the appropriate zoning, but I would argue with you that commercial is not,
either. This is on the fringe of some of the best of old south Augusta neighborhoods, and to put a
convenience store here and you’ve also got to look at the similarly-situated properties across the
street, you know, in the intersection, all those are going to be commercial properties the day this
gets zoned. And the – Mr. Williams did mention the fact that we approved the shopping center,
and I can tell you that when that came forward I was reluctant to go along with it at first because
of the reasons I am citing here today. But that was going to be a unique project, certainly unique
for south Richmond County. It was going to be private-public partnership. It was going to be a
high-end commercial center [inaudible]. It was going to be developed by the guy that did the
Evans Town Center, similar architecture, similar uses. We went so far as to agree to purchase
the property behind it for the public works and utilities buildings, which I understand we’re still
moving forward with, and [inaudible] really be a shot in the arm for south Richmond County.
What you’re looking at here today is just another convenience store that’s going to set the trend
for that whole area and the effect it would have on the neighborhood surrounding Rollins school,
across the street Canada Drive, that area, I think would be overwhelming, and that’s why I would
ask you to deny it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I’m going to switch back to the petitioner at this time for the
purposes of, if you’ve got a presentation to make on that side to see what it is and where we are
at this time because some of us, well at least probably all of us, maybe with the exception of our
21
liaison person on planning and zoning may not know what of any of the details are, so at this
time –
Mr. Bill Williams: Let me – George must have been out of the room when I told you that
there were two objectors, and they were from the VFW and I think they had lunch over there or
something cause they were confused about where it was located because their only concern was
accel and decel lane, not the use of the property. And I’d like Mr. Harrison from Enmark to tell
you about what they plan on doing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You are probably going to have to use the map and then we’ll look
at what [inaudible] drawings in order for them to be able to hear you on that end and for the
Clerk to be able to pick you up. If you need to move with the mike, though, it will come out of
there.
Mr. Harrison: [inaudible] talk about, we were talking about the two objections that were
at the last meeting. And Mr. Williams alluded to that property and that [inaudible] with your
finger, and that’s that piece right there. Show the other folks to your left, [inaudible]. That’s
[inaudible] possibility of [inaudible].
The Clerk: Sir, can you –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I could make a suggestion, I think probably just to go down the
line while he’s talking so they can see that. Cause I think I got the worst eyes on board. And I
tell you what, unless you got some $6 million eyes, they won’t pick up what’s on that.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Harrison: Can I do that? Thank you. I’m sorry to take so much time. It’s our
livelihood, so we try to make it quick. If I may –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we figured out more than one way to skin that cat.
Everybody got a chance to look at it. If you could resume and then we try and conclude your
presentation and then we, we –
Mr. Harrison: We’re looking at developing an Enmark station containing approximately
3,000 square feet, 3,100 square feet. The site, as Mr. Williams had mentioned before, is 4.43
acres. You’ve got frontage on Windsor Springs Road of 655 feet. Again, to the east you’ve got
Richmond Hill Road. Across the road, the present landowner owns 13 or 14 acres directly across
the road from it. If you go on to the west, you’ve got – there’s no impact that I found or saw on
any additional subdivisions, and if you’re trying to put a small development on 4.43 acres,
obviously it’s more than we need to develop, so we will more than compensate for any
developmental or ordinance requirements in terms of setback, green belt, and so forth. There’s
enough trees around there that to the rear we can leave gobs of trees, so I don’t think a visibility
problem would exist there. I would like to add just a couple of conceptual comments. Even as
early as two or three years ago, a service station like Enmark and so forth, it was alluded that
22
we’re just another store. That’s not necessarily the case any more. I think that used to be the
case. Nowadays, competition is so competitive. Our customers, or anybody’s customer
[inaudible] expect clean restroom, clean facility, they expect our store to look good, they expect
the lighting to be reasonable, not overwhelming. In terms of the lighting, we can do direct
lighting that will protect. If there’s any concerns about additional property and overflow of light,
that can be addressed from the engineering standpoint. That is not a problem. You don’t see the
type loitering or people hanging around these type stores like you used to years ago. The whole
concept has changed, and I would only ask that if you at one point was looking at a shopping
center that provides many, many different amenities for different tastes, for different customers,
and we’re one user, then I don’t know how we can spur additional commercial growth just be
virtue of the fact that hopefully we would be approved to develop at this location. A shopping
center typically is what we like to be around, so that’s a draw for people like Enmark in other
locations. So do you have a question?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Well, I don’t think – this is across the street from my district but I really
don’t know. Others may have a lot of concern, but I was former president of the Rollins area
neighborhood association, the 1200+ homes that surround this site. I also live less than a quarter
of a mile from this site. The entranceway to the Rollins area that you see across the street with
the signs that say Birch Grant I put in with my sons, with my own hands. So I played in those
woods as a child. I have a very high degree of concern about this particular area. Having
reviewed the site plans, knowing that that area has been undeveloped for so many years, with the
guarantee that we’re going to get a tastefully done, nicely landscaped facility there that will be a
complement to attract similar type or better type development to that area, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
as a resident of that area, former president of that neighborhood association, and Commissioner
for the district across the street, I am going to urge support for this. All of Windsor Spring Road,
we have dozens of homes who were left by state DOT with no front yard. Windsor Spring Road
will be going commercial hopefully sooner rather than later, to give those residents an
opportunity to get into homes where they have real yards, if they could get a reasonable
repayment for their property. We need commercial development. Windsor Spring Road is five
lanes at that point and nicely situated for commercial development, with public works and
utilities coming in, South Augusta Square hopefully coming in along the expressway and so
forth. We’re going to see major changes to this area. I can’t think of a better first start than we
have with a nice – which there’s not one around on Windsor Spring Road for a couple of miles
up the street – a nicely done, nicely landscaped facility such as this in an area that’s currently a
collector for discarded trash and it’s covered with scrub oaks. So having reviewed this, also the
question of the lighting, if you’ll notice this is more south on Windsor Spring Road which brings
it probably 100 or so feet below the entrance to Richmond Hill Road and the Rollins area. The
nearest home will be several hundred feet from the lighting. The home on the side of Richmond
Hill Road downhill from Windsor Spring Road has a dense growth of woods between it and this
facility. My concern, of course, would be what the property owner plans to do with the place
I’m going to make a motion that
across the street more so than this. But Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
we approve this with the guarantee that we’re going to get a nicely done, nicely landscaped
complement to that neighborhood because this will set the tone for that entire intersection.
23
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Commissioner
Hankerson, I recognize you first. Any other Commissioners on this end? Mr. Hankerson and
then Commissioner Smith. How about on the far end? Okay. Commissioner Hankerson and
then Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m speaking because it is in District
5. I, you know, we are wanting businesses to come to our area and especially from what I’ve
seen of this particular establishment, years ago down in south Georgia, I think around
Swainsboro, somewhere, [inaudible] buy the gas from one of them. They were so pretty, that’s
why I used to stop there to buy diesel fuel, traveling preaching down in south Georgia. And one
is on Bobby Jones Expressway now. So they usually keep some very clean, attractive – I don’t
call this a convenience store, I saw on here, it’s not a convenience store but a business like this,
fuel, service station, everything there that you can go – I hope they have some sandwiches and
all that in there, too. But I support this and I, you know, you have a citizens of Augusta
Richmond County that has been waiting for several years on the promises of something, is it
going to come and has not came to them yet, but now you have somebody that do want to
develop in that area. So that’s why I would support this and I hope that other Commissioners
would support it, even your larger developments you have like in North Augusta, where they
built and Waynesboro, where they built a Wal-Mart in that plaza. They always have a service
station there cause you look for that when you have a large development. So I think, I hope
when this [inaudible] is completed that somebody else will come along and want to develop that,
the other acreage that’s been promised or fell through the cracks. So it has my support, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Our Pride and Progress committee has
dealt a couple of years ago, as Mr. Williams has mentioned, with Mr. Calloway from Florida,
who is a developer. And we hoped and prayed that he was going to put a Publix supermarket in
there, which he thought he could. And that crashed and burned and now we have another
opportunity and we wholeheartedly endorse this and hope that our fellow Commissioners will
support it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. We have a motion and a second that’s on the floor. If there
be no further discussion on this item, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that motion was to approve.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
24
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Appreciate your [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem:
If I don’t see you in a few days, I know the judge kept you, Bill.
The chair will entertain a motion that we, that we take number 27 off table status.
27. Z-04-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) 10’ buffer which conforms to the
side yard buffer requirements of the Tree Ordinance on east property line adjacent to lots in
Raintree Place Subdivision; 2) no access easement on same property line to Raintree Place
Subdivision; 3) no impervious materials to be used as parking lot surface; and the Owner of
the Club must record a deed restriction on his property agreeing to the following: A) provide
152 parking spaces on his property if lease expires or is terminated, or subject property does
not yield 80 spaces. Owner must agree to eliminate facilities if 152 parking spaces cannot be
provided; B) purchase and install signage for neighborhood within 300 feet of the Club
entrance in conformance with standards of Traffic Engineering; C) submit and implement a
written plan for traffic and parking control during tournament; and D) limit hours of
operation of the sports bar/restaurant to closing at 11:30 P.M.; a petition by William A.
Trotter, III, on behalf of ATC Development Corporation, requesting a Special Exception,
to establish a public parking area to support the Club at Rae’s Creek, per Section 8-2(b) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located on the south right-of-way line of Kamel Circle (dead end), 260 feet, more or less,
south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Kerry Place and Kamel Circle and
contains approximately 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcel 120) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor
of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll move back to the order of the day, which currently, Madame
Clerk, will be back to item 27.
The Clerk: You need me to read that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, if you’d hold for a moment, cause it’s a long reading.
The Clerk: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And what I’d like to do is get the attorneys in the room, if there’s a
change in what the caption is going to be, then we can do that and then we’ll take a count for the
official record of where we are at that time, and then – prior to, okay, hold on, we’re back to the
25
order of the day. Let’s deal with the reading of the motion, as you so stated, Madame Clerk..
Because there won’t be any change in it. I thought it might be something different that was in
there, it won’t be. So if you could read it into the record, of what it is, and then we’ll take a
count.
The Clerk:
27. Z-04-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) 10’ buffer which conforms to the
side yard buffer requirements of the Tree Ordinance on east property line adjacent to lots in
Raintree Place Subdivision; 2) no access easement on same property line to Raintree Place
Subdivision; 3) no impervious materials to be used as parking lot surface; and the Owner of
the Club must record a deed restriction on his property agreeing to the following: A) provide
152 parking spaces on his property if lease expires or is terminated, or subject property does
not yield 80 spaces. Owner must agree to eliminate facilities if 152 parking spaces cannot be
provided; B) purchase and install signage for neighborhood within 300 feet of the Club
entrance in conformance with standards of Traffic Engineering; C) submit and implement a
written plan for traffic and parking control during tournament; and D) limit hours of
operation of the sports bar/restaurant to closing at 11:30 P.M.; a petition by William A.
Trotter, III, on behalf of ATC Development Corporation, requesting a Special Exception,
to establish a public parking area to support the Club at Rae’s Creek, per Section 8-2(b) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located on the south right-of-way line of Kamel Circle (dead end), 260 feet, more or less,
south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Kerry Place and Kamel Circle and
contains approximately 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcel 120) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve heard the reading of the stated item on 27. The chair is
open for the purpose of getting a motion on the floor first. We need to.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mays, I make a motion that we approve item 27 request and
then I have another comment I’d like to make in regards to an addition that we will be
asking you to approve, also.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. And since the reading of
the caption states the same on the motion and nothing has changed, at this time the chair is going
to take, the chair is going to take a count on the persons that have come first in support of the
petition and then we’ll do a count of the persons who are here in opposition to the petition. If
you would raise your hands, those who would come in support of it.
(31 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 31 in terms of the show in numbers. Okay. Those that are in
opposition to the petition will also raise their hands for a count.
26
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you could hold on just one second. Okay. I want to do, while
we’re doing the counting, if there are some here other than –
The Clerk: Objectors?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any objectors may raise their hands.
(No objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The chair recognizes Dr. Bloodworth. If you want to ask a
question, go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. Bloodworth: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners, a like number of people
entered this room today in opposition to this, but thanks to the approach to the problem that
Commissioner Grantham was able to put together in the room next door, I believe that that
opposition to the recommendation is greatly diminished, although I would suspect that if the
action that Mr. Grantham is going to propose after the vote on item number 27, if not carried
forth, that the opposition would still be there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Sound like the spirit of a good jaguar. If we could, and
probably maybe to move in the essence of time, normally we would listen to both sides of where
we are. We’ve taken the count, we’ve done that. Y’all have spent tremendous time in working
on a compromise, and which really anytime we have differing sides, if we can, it’s always good
that if you can’t reach some type of an agreement, and we’re glad to see that’s in progress. I’m
going to ask my Super District colleague to address us on the – that you want to make an
amendment on your motion or you going to make a motion, depending on the outcome of this.
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to make an amendment to the motion that would be –
well, more of an attachment than anything else, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and that attachment
would be that the members of the neighborhood that this is affecting, Mr. Belangia, the
property owner, Mr. Cutler, who is the owner of the Racquet Club, and the Forest Hills
Townhouse Association, that they have agreed to have an understanding that they will
pursue all aspects of an ingress and egress from the apartment site onto Jackson Road or
other areas that might be available and that that pursuit be done as quickly as possible and
it is not in any form obligating any party now for any type of deed or dedication of any
property and there is also stated that I would encourage our Commissioners to support this
and that if any possible financial assistance can be made into the ingress and egress of that
property, then I would also encourage that along with my Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask the petitioner. Is there any problem with anything
that’s been so stated in the motion or suggestion in there, Mr. Cutler?
27
Mr. Cutler: No, sir. As I mentioned to both Commissioner Grantham and to the
neighborhood, we’re very much in favor of the exit out the other way, if it’s feasible, which is
what we’re going to try and find out.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. All right. Do any persons have any questions?
Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I don’t have a dog in this hunt at all, but
I do like to see thing progress and progress well. But a question came to mind and I’d like to
know – maybe Mr. Patty can help me out – we had a, a problem with the number of parking
position that proposed, to be proposed for this area. Have we solved the water situation that we
had with the, in the area? For some time we have been back and forth, George, with what is
done already there and what need to be done. I’m not opposed, but I just need to ask that
question because now is the time to ask it.
Mr. Patty: Well, the issue before you today is whether or not to allow them to use this
undeveloped land for parking, to solve the parking problem that was created with the addition
was done to this building That’s one of several problems that Mr. Cutler has and even if this is
approved, he’s still got engineering to do and that engineering work has got to be approved by
the Corps. In addition to that, there are building permit issues and fire code issues that need to
be resolved, so there is a good ways to go. We’ve done everything we can as far as conditions
and the work that’s been done at this point, to limit the impact this would have on the flow of
flooding through that area. Obviously if a road is built in the flood plane, that would impact the
100 years flood flow and that’s something that would have to be looked at when this engineering
is done. But in order for them to ever utilize this parking lot, even if you approve this zoning
today, there will have to be a – models will have to be run and the Corps will have to be satisfied
that it would not exacerbate the existing problems with the 100 year flood through that area.
Mr. Williams: And George, I think the reason I asked the question cause I wouldn’t want
the investor to not invest money and to getting to a certain point and not knowing that [inaudible]
there. We been faced with that several times here about what was going on there. And the
additional work. I mean I’m not opposed. I mean I just, I just thought I would ask that question
so it would be on the table that it’s going to be an additional impact. I think that’s where I was
looking at.
Mr. Cutler: And Mr. Williams, can I address that as well? We have worked with the
license and inspection department for about the last eight months, as well as the fire department,
as well as FEMA and the Corps of Engineers and a bunch of the other parties. At this point, we
believe that we have met all the requirements that license and inspection and the fire department
are going to require with respect to protection of the flood zone and the floodways, as well as fire
protection. I believe the only open issue that we have as we sit here is approval of this particular
parking lot by FEMA. Other than that, I think we’ve managed to get through all the steps that we
needed to do to get the building in place, safe and within code.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
28
Mr. Cheek: Just a sidebar issue concerning this particular area. The flooding problems
that occur in there are still there as a result of the privately-constructed bridge that we are
looking for funds to address and have for the last couple of years, as well as widening the
channel of Raes Creek down through there to conduct additional waters down toward Aumond
lake. That’s is something that’s a long term thing that the city is working on and perhaps with
our federal Raes Creek flood study that we’re doing and some of the funding set aside in
SPLOST V, we’ll be able to accommodate those needs, but that is something that you folks are
going to have to deal with until we can get that small bridge out of the way and get full volume
width of the creek and able to flow and perhaps widening the creek down though that area, but
that is one of the things y’all will have to live with until we can get it resolved. But I support
this. I think it’s a good compromise and certainly I view the tournaments and things you may
have and the crowds that you may in the neighborhood. It’s the same thing that Athens has on
Saturdays. It’s something that’s inconvenient but it brings an awful lot of economic benefit to
the area.
Mr. Cutler: Thank you, sir. And I will say that that bridge is definitely something we
want to help you address.
Mr. Cheek: We’ll be looking forward to any matching contributions that you can come
up with.
Mr. Cutler: We’ll work for federal money on that, as well.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any other questions on that end? Any other questions on
this end? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cutler: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll extend to y’all the same offer. You’re welcome to stay tonight,
too, if you wish to.
The Clerk: I call your attention to items 28 and 30.
28. Z-04-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions, 1) that the use of the property be
limited to medical professional uses only; and 2) that there be only one curb cut onto Mayo
Road; a petition by Steve Brown, on behalf of Courtney Tabb Wall, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with conditions to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located where the southwest right-of-way line
of Stevens Creek Road intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Mayo Road and
contains approximately 2 acres. (Part of Tax Map 6 Parcel 13) DISTRICT 7
29
The Clerk: Are these companion items?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No. We’ve got some of the same people, but let’s go to 28 first
and then we’ll go to 30 and then come back to 29.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Ms. Stewart: I’m Fran Stewart, I’m president of Brookfield Neighborhood and I’m also
here representing West Augusta Alliance, which is the zip codes of 30909, 30907 and 30904. In
front of you, you have a packet that has this on it, and then you have a piece of paper like this.
What I would like for you to do is be turning to the piece of paper that says 300’ x 500’, if you’d
turn to that, and I wanted to begin by just saying that if you at the arrow, it talks about this –
under this is guiding policy for commercial and professional office, and it says where the arrow,
in the areas where there is a precedent for commercial and professional office development,
commercial and professional zoning should be limited to a radius of approximately 500’ from the
center of the intersections to a strip not more than 300’ deep if appropriate. For purposes of this
policy, the applicable roads include those identified as minor arterials and collector roads. What
I would like to show you right now is this is your comprehensive land use plan of February 14,
2004, and I asked Don Grantham if all of you Commissioners have a copy of this, and you said
you weren’t sure. But this is where I’m getting the information that I’m going to tell you about.
This is the map that’s in there that shows what our transportation facilities are and right here you
see that Riverwatch Parkway is an expressway from I-20 downtown, and then you see that it’s
red from I-20 to the Columbia County line, and there it’s called a principal arterial road. You
don’t see any yellow or green, which are what are minor arterials and collectors on the far side of
Riverwatch Parkway. I just wanted to give you that for information. Some people have said
why has our area of this little triangle not been developed before now? This is the public water
system sewer and the major water lines are in red. If you can see, there are no red lines up in this
little triangle area that I’m talking about. This is a copy of the public wastewater system and the
red area is the sewage lines. And there again you see a lot of red on here, but where you’re
talking about our area, in that little area you don’t see any red lines. This is the water and sewer
project for 2002 series bonds that many years ago a lot of us were here talking about low water
pressure in certain areas of west Augusta. And you will see a little green dot at the Columbia
County line at Dennis Road, and that’s where an above-ground water tank is going to be. You’re
not going to have to put that up in the air because this is about the highest point in all of
Richmond County. A little later, you’ll hear me talking about Rock Creek, because all of this at
Mayo Road and Stevens Creek Road is downhill from that area. This is an area that you’ve got
in your packet that I’m just going to show you as far as what we call green space, above our area.
There’s one little green color you can see on one of the maps in your packet that’s at Berckman
Road and Ingleside Drive. And that’s where Deke Copenhaver bought the man’s that was
complaining about the hood fence on the land, so that’s where I’m getting all of this information
from. On Mayo Road, we do not want a cut into Mayo Road from a professional business on the
two acres at Stevens Creek Road. I’m going to hold this up to you now. This is a copy that y’all
can see in front of you of the map, and I want to show you the Columbia County side first. This
30
is the Columbia County side, and the gray area is like the quarry and the orange area is where
Reed Creek is and all of this in the Columbia County side is more like single-family. So the part
we’re talking about you can see on your little maps, this is Riverwatch Parkway. This is Stevens
Creek Road. And this is Mayo Road in orange that I’ve tried to show you. We know on
Riverwatch Parkway at Stevens Creek, the first one is B-2 and the next one is B-2, the next one
is B-1 across from Mayo Road, and then there is a B-1 that’s up at Dennis Road. That’s right
next to Hunters Ridge, where Tommy Boyles and Chief Gillespie live. Y’all have it rezoned on
Mayo Road. You see the two orange areas. The one that’s the pink dot is what we’re talking
about, the professional doctor’s office wanting a cut into Mayo Road. Last year we were here at
the same time and I did have 198 signatures at planning and zoning, which they accepted, of
neighbors not wanting a cut into Mayo Road. And what I’m saying is we really want all of this
to always be 300’ x 500’ if it has to be business on Stevens Creek Road. And as I can see, if you
allow any more business on the left hand side, it may go right on up to where you see the B-1 at
Dennis Road, where the water tower is going to be. And I feel like we may have to have that, we
may have to have that business on Stevens Creek Road. All of the residents want anything
behind that to remain single-family homes, R-1A. That would be a home that has grass around
it. It couldn’t be row houses. So we’re asking that you not allow a cut on that road. One other
thing that I’ve been concerned about is this particular copy right here, I’m concerned about Rock
Creek that’s across the way, and now I’d like for you to turn to the page where I’ve got
Prattwood Drive and Mayo Road, and you’ll see up in this upper corner it says Rock Creek, and
in the green space – this is from the comprehensive land use plan – the pink area I’ve got talks
about in 2002 y’all updated the green space, and it says the green space program identifies areas
for protection, including lands along the Savannah River, within Phinizy Swamp, and along the
major creeks, and then it lists Butler, Raes, and Rock. And see, I want you to see where Rock
Creek is on there. We’re always hearing about Rocky Creek, which is on down below, and some
people get confused. But you see, there’s Rock Creek, then there’s Raes Creek, then there’s
Rocky Creek, you know, Butler Creek, Spirit Creek and so forth. I’d like for you to look on the
back side of this piece of paper and this is why I’m concerned about Rock Creek and what’s
going on in our neighborhood, where it says – the pink – it says FEMA flood [inaudible] are
located within and adjacent to Savannah River and its tributaries. There again, you see Rock
Creek listed again. Then there is one last piece of paper I’d like for you to look at, which is this
one here. You can see Stevens Creek Road is right here, and then Rock Creek starts on the other
side of Stevens Creek Road, right behind Iron Horse apartments, kind of where the Elks Club is.
And then it goes under Stevens Creek Road, and this is where I talked to you about a year ago
about, you know, they clear cut all the trees between Stevens Creek and Claussen Road, and
that’s where they’re building attached homes, adjacent to one another. And then underneath I-
20, from I-20 to Alexander Drive where Stevens Auto is, y’all now have 65 row houses built on
Rock Creek that are selling for $65,000 each. So that concerns me that that’s there. Then of
course after it passes over Alexander Drive it goes over towards Warren Lake, which y’all all
know is full if silt. So I am so in hopes that you will be aware of what is happening in Rock
Creek, and I wish we could declare that a green space. If not a green space, at least have public
works have it all cleared out always so people can be walking or biking that area and keeping an
eye for what’s going on. So my request to you considering Mayo Road is we do not want a cut
in there. If you put a cut in there, that it sets a precedent for having a cut on the other side. Now
George Patty has sort of assured me that he feels like that we should have single-family
31
residential, R-1A, back behind this 300’ x 500’ business that can be on Stevens Creek Road.
Now I know Mr. Crowder lives right across the street on Mayo Road and he wanted to come.
Cromer, I’m sorry. Hal Cromer. Would you want to let him come and say what he wants to
before you address questions to us about Mayo Road? Or you what to see how many people are
opposed, that I have with me?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me do that, Ms. Stewart, on both sides in reference to a
count. And then I need to break for just a moment and see if Mr. Patty or the petitioner has got a
comment, for just a moment, and then I’ll come back to Mr. Cromer. Those that are here, that –
those that are here first that in favor of the petition as it is written, will you raise your hands?
That would be the petitioner and anybody else that would be with the petition?
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, could I speak? I’m the one making the petition here today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to do that, Mr. Brown. That’s why I just mentioned I
was going to – Ms. Stewart was already up and was on the floor and I wanted to get hers in. I
am still going to give you equal time, probably more if you need it. But let me get the count
through and I’m going to recognize you and Mr. Patty at that point. That’s why I cut hers in the
second person, and I’m going to get there, if you would. Let me get that in. I’ve got at least
three that are on that side of the petition. Those that are against the petition, that is here? And I
want to get those numbers in.
(5 supporters noted)
(25 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Patty, before I recognize Mr. Brown from the
petitioner’s side and of bringing in, is there anything in terms of any clarity that you need to
make to us on anything prior to that? Then I’m going to give Mr. Brown the floor.
Mr. Patty: The property is currently zoned B-1 with the stipulation that there can’t be
any access to Mayo Road. It’s a two acre tract at the intersection of Mayo and Stevens Creek. It
was zoned that way about a year ago. The applicant at that time wanted to do commercial in the
front and I believe professional on the back and the back, however many acres, was withdrawn, I
believe, and the corner rezoned with that condition. The applicant has found a buyer for the
property, and that buyer wants to do medical offices on the property. The similarly-situated
properties across Mayo Road and across Stevens Creek Road are all zoned commercial with no
such condition. The applicant wants to put a medical office on this property, with one point of
access to Mayo Road, and to me that seems like a good trade-off to know what you’re getting in
there. It won’t be some commercial use that will generate a lot more traffic. It will be a medical
office that will look like a house. The traffic will not be the normal commuter patterns for the
businesses. The occupants will go home at night. And it just seems like a good solution to the
neighborhood and a small price to pay for getting that type of use in that area. The plan supports
it, the land use pattern supports it, the zoning pattern supports it. I don’t think it sets a precedent
that will carry on west on Mayo Road, as the neighborhood suggests. As far as development of
32
surrounding properties, I told Fran that I personally would fight any kind of commercial
development on this property, but it would be some kind of residential I felt, and I would stand
by that, and that’s my take on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask you this while you’re still at the mike, and I guess what
I’m looking for is the fact that 27 started off in one way and that’s why I didn’t want to deal with
the count earlier, and something was worked in it. And what I’m searching for, to see if there are
some differences in here today, and the reason why I asked you to step in for just a moment, you
mentioned about what had taken place a year ago, and the reason why I wanted you in here on a
little bit of it, to bring it up, and of course we’ve done a lot in the last year, so my, my mind can
also slip. But the fact that we’ve got four people here that were not here last year, and I kind of
wanted to delay that groundwork in there as to what we are working with, and I guess for
clarity’s sake, are we, are we in a situation where the difference is the difference of one part of
what’s in the petition or are we in a difference of what is in the whole petition? And I think that
might get a little bit clearer to the entire Commission here. Some may be more familiar with it,
others not, and as to where that might be.
Mr. Patty: I think Mr. Brown might be able to address that better than I can, but it was a
large tract, it had been in the ownership of one family for many years, and there was a death in
the family and it came on the market, and after some time and debate, the application was for
commercial zoning on the corner two acres and professional on the rest. And like I said, we did
rezone the corner commercial, B-1, which would allow convenience stores, grocery stores, you
know, the whole gamut of commercial uses, but we did put a condition on it that there couldn’t
be access to Mayo Road. So what they’re asking for now, they’re coming back with another use
that would be much less impact on the neighborhood, but they are asking for access to Mayo
Road. That’s the real issue before you today. Can they have access to Mayo Road? The
planning commission said they could, but it would only be one point of access.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. What I’m going to do at this time, I’m going to recognize
Mr. Brown so that he can get in [inaudible] side of where you are in there and as we go into the
questions that commissioners may have for either one of you, I am going to get back to the
gentleman over here at that point, but we normally like to get at least a balance of both sides out
there where we can get a gist of what we’re rolling with. And so Mr. Brown, it’s yours at this
time, and then I’ll come back to you.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’d just like to say that we do concur with the
recommendation of the planning commission. We did a year ago, Mr. Patty is correct, receive
favorable [inaudible] for a B-1 zone with stipulation of not a curb cut on Mayo Road. And now
we’ve come back and limited our use to one specific medical use on the property in exchange for
a curb cut. Now I myself would think it would make better sense not to have two left turns going
up Stevens Creek [inaudible] and not permitted on Mayo Drive so you can have a left turn on
Mayo and then another left turn going in this property on Stevens Creek. I would think from a
traffic flow standpoint it makes better sense to have one left turn, and I think that’s what Mayo
Road is constructed for, a service road. So you know, from the petitioner and from Ms. Tabb’s
family, I think we’ve done what is right and what is fair, and I think this will enhance the
33
neighborhood and I think we’ve made our concessions. I just hope that y’all consider what
we’ve done and help us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any questions at this time of either party before I
recognize the other gentleman over here? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, two things. Number 1, I want to ask George Patty. Wasn’t it just
a few months ago that we accepted into the green space inventory the portion of Rock Creek
between Stevens Creek and Claussen Road? Wasn’t that a gift to us?
Mr. Patty: We’ve accepted two small tracts on Rock Creek that are up near Bertram
Road and the –
Mr. Boyles: Yeah, Bertram?
Mr. Patty: Yeah. The Savannah River Land Trust has also accepted a couple of tracts
that are out toward I-20. As far as anything on the other side, I’m not aware if we’ve taken
anything.
Mr. Boyles: Where we’re talking about, where Ms. Stewart was talking about was the
houses, the apartments, condos that have been built between Stevens Creek and on down toward
Claussen, and I was wondering since that was clear-cut – I know a couple a months ago there
was something on our agenda where the property owners had donated or wanted us to maintain,
so we put it – I thought we put it into the green space program.
Mr. Patty: Like I say, the only ones I’m aware of, Tommy, are over there around
Bertram Road. Steve, do you know?
Mr. Shepard: No, I’d have to look at the record.
Mr. Patty: Did not come through me.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, that’s probably incidental to this. Mr. Mays, I did last Sunday
afternoon, I spent a long time on the phone with Mr. Cromer. I’m sorry, I went by his house and
saw a big crowd there and I’m really sorry I didn’t stay for dinner, Mr. Cromer. That’s what I’m
afraid of and I hate that, but he told me on the phone tbat he had several questions that he wanted
to ask because his property is directly across the street. He had several questions that he was
really not allowed to ask at the planning commission and he wanted to address us on that and if
you would allow him to do that, I would appreciate that, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s going to get a chance to address them today. Let me, let me
yield one second to Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Cromer, if you would, go ahead and approach
the mike, because once Commissioner Grantham is finished, I’m going to go ahead and
recognize you and then –
34
Mr. Grantham: Let me yield to him cause his questions may have to deal with my
comments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No problem.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: State your name and address for the record, Mr. Cromer.
Mr. Cromer: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners, my name is Hal Cromer.
I’ve been a resident of 2706 Mayo Road and also a taxpayer for 47 years. The property that’s in
question is directly in front of my house. I’m the only resident that it actually affects. And as
Mr. Patty and Mr. Brown said, we were down here roughly 12 months ago for this same
situation. I don’t have an eloquent presentation to make like Fran did. I just do it from a
practical standpoint. Mayo Road, if you’re not familiar with it, is roughly one mile long. It dead
ends or starts at Stevens Creek Road, and for all practical purposes, it dead ends at Big Hunt
Road. Now it doesn’t stop there, but you have to go back up through Brookfield subdivision to
get back to Fury’s Ferry Road and it’s a maze in there. When we were down here a year ago and
this question come up, I requested a traffic survey out there and was told it wasn’t necessary to
do a traffic survey, but there was a traffic survey made, and I feel like that the results of the
traffic survey is one reason they turned down a cut off of Mayo Road onto this piece of property.
Now I’m not looking at it from a personal standpoint, I’m looking at it from a standpoint of
traffic that I see. I’m a retired electrician. I live there seven days a week. I work in the yard six,
and I see this traffic day in, day out, day in and day out. It is a problem at Stevens Creek Road
and Mayo Road. At the present time, Stevens Creek Road is closed at Reed Creek, so it’s a
pretty good little situation there now, but that’s not going to last long. I cannot see the practical
standpoint of putting a driveway on Mayo Road back to Stevens Creek Road, because if this
doctor has any patients at all, the only ones that going benefit from this driveway is the people
that live in Brookfield. Now – yeah, Brookfield. If they exit this piece of property to Mayo
Road, they’ve only got to go roughly 200’ to get back to Stevens Creek Road and then they’ve
got to get back on Stevens Creek Road and either go north or south. So I think it would be more
conducive for patients to enter and exit on Stevens Creek Road than it would on Mayo Road.
What it’s going to create down Mayo Road is you have Brookfield Park, you have all the
residents that live on Mayo Road and down in Brookfield, you have the Pierce Baptist Church
down there, and there’s a tremendous amount of traffic that dead ends there at Stevens Creek
Road and Mayo Road. So I can only see where it would create a problem for everyone that this
gentleman has as patients except the people that does live in Brookfield. So I’m going to ask
that you not give them an exit and entrance on Mayo Road, and one other thing that I would
bring up to your attention is a ditch on the west side of Mayo Road that’s about 3’ deep and it
stands in water and it has for 47 years. And I can’t imagine what the runoff from a parking lot
on this piece of property is going to do to Mayo Road. Of course, that’s got nothing to do with
the cut, but I just thought I would bring that up. It’s already been zoned for the doctor’s office. I
got no problem with that. These people seem to think that I’m opposed to progress. I’m not
opposed to progress because if it wasn’t for progress I wouldn’t have anything. But I would like
for you to take into consideration the inconvenience that it’s going to create for the people in
35
Brookfield, the people that live on Mayo Road, and the people that use Pierce Baptist Church
and Brookfield Park. And also, it’s going to be a problem for the patients that this doctor has if
he starts dumping them off on Mayo Road and try to get them back on Stevens Creek Road to
get back to Riverwatch Parkway or up into Columbia County. Thank you, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Brown, since your presentation was fairly short, is there
anything you wanted to rebut or – not necessarily rebut, but to add to in terms of what has been
stated from the petitioner side?
Mr. Brown: I just say if you’re going to look at the impact of any road, additional
impact, where you’d want to have the curb cut [inaudible] close to the intersection, further down
Mayo Road. And again, Mr. Cromer says about the church. Well, you know, that’s on Sunday,
and Wednesday nights. I mean the medical professional is going to open during the weekdays,
so I don’t see a conflict there. But again, I’m not going to argue about it. I’m just going – we
concur with the planning commission recommendation and I believe that was the unanimous
recommendation and I believe we’ve made concessions. We’ve sold the other 5.33 acres, Mr.
Mays, to a residential buyer, and that’s all I need to say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The chair recognizes Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Cromer put some ideas in my head
that I had discussed with Ms. Stewart in regards to the traffic situation, and I concur with you. I
do feel like you are going to see an increase in traffic on Stevens Creek Road regardless of
whether that particular professional business is put there or not. Stevens Creek Road has always
been a busy avenue to get out to the West Lake area, and certain of the others. One of my
comments was that in talking to Ms. Stewart, and I think we concurred on this, as I told her in
the past that she and I agree on a lot of things and there are some things we probably won’t agree
on. But that does not not make us friends and does not make me appreciate her efforts. But I
would be supportive of this situation if we can look at putting a traffic signal there. And I think a
traffic signal would be extremely important for Stevens Creek Road and Mayo Road, that it
would give the ingress and egress problems that you have coming from Mayo Road now onto
Stevens Creek Road. It would also eliminate the professional business of having to turn out on
Stevens Creek Road, because you know the problem that you encounter making that turn even
off of Mayo Road. I’ve been out there twice this last weekend just to get a feel and to get an
idea. I was out there about two weeks ago to visit Brookfield Park and certainly it is a somewhat
of a problem and I think it’s going to increase no matter what we like or what we say about it.
Traffic is going to increase out on the west side of you regardless. So I would like to pursue the
idea of a traffic signal there and Commissioner Boyles, along with your involvement, I think that
might be a resolving solution to this situation for all parties. I don’t know how that may have
been looked into in the past, but I do think it’s something that needs to be given serious
consideration. And Mr. Cromer, it may help your situation, as well.
Mr. Cromer: I don’ t have a problem with it, Commissioner. I [inaudible] get in and out
[inaudible].
36
Mr. Grantham: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we might table that, if I can talk with Mr. Patty for
just a minute and some members of the neighborhood group, if they would come forward, as
well as the petitioner, there may be some mediation [inaudible] for this one, too, if the body
would see fit to table it.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t have a problem, if you’re working out something. Let me,
let me ask a couple of questions before you table. Are you tabling to – and I know a lot of things
can come out when you’re in a meeting of compromise, but are you dealing with trying to work
something on the traffic signalization or are you trying to work something that’s on the existing
issue?
Mr. Shepard: Well, either or both, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I hadn’t been advised of any
interest in the traffic signalization until this meeting, but there may be some merit into going into
that at this point.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Cause I know with – I don’t ever like to get folks too enthused
about traffic signalization, because traffic signalization, I think of [inaudible] Road before
Richard had it and Bobby had it, to a point that I think we went through a bunch of deaths before
you got a traffic light out through there. And that’s one when you start talking about – that’s a
big if when you get into, into traffic signalization, even putting it on the table, even where the
stats have shown what you’ve got to deal with that. So I mean I’m just saying that before you –
if that’s going to be something that you’re going to look and talk about that you might as well be
real honest about the fact that traffic signalization is something that can take time and to put in,
and if you’re going to do it, then obviously the petitioner on his side, to a point that if he’s trying
to move, is not going to be waiting from the standpoint that he’s going to wait to develop a
project based on whether Richmond County and the state is going to put a traffic light up. And
then at the same time, if you’ve got opposition from the neighborhood group, they are not going
to usually back off from opposition if it’s going to be dependent on us finding a way to put the
signalization up there. I’m just through that out to a point of being realistic and honest with it.
But if it’s something that you think you can work, I certainly have no problem with it and would
vote for, you know, for doing it, but I just make that observation to a point that if that’s going to
be the common denominator that you’re working on that’s going to be a traffic light, then you
might want to change the bottom end of that fraction and work on something else. Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I thought you had something you –
37
Mr. Shepard: I mean if you want me to attempt that, I’ll attempt it. If you don’t, you can
–
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I have no problem in terms of voting for that to get it, but I felt
forced to make that observation over the years of looking at traffic signalization as being
something that is not just something like a four-way stop sign or something of that nature that
you get into. You can go out and send somebody out and put one out, cause the big thing is you
start getting into cost factors of it, and then it gets into who pays, who is ready to do it, and then
you know, it just doesn’t, to a point get to be an easy solution to what people may have. Mr.
Boyles, you had your hand up, and I think Andy, as well.
Mr. Boyles: I did. Since the traffic – thank you, Mr. Mays. Since the traffic situation,
the traffic conversation came up, I have a letter that was dated March 22 from a Mrs. Hunter,
Vickie Hunter, that lives right across from or right beside Mayo subdivision. It said dear
Tommy, I am writing this letter to ask your assistance in having a left turning lane constructed at
Mayo Road and Stevens Creek Road. Since the new park was built and it’s getting warmer –
now this was March 22 – there has been a significant increase in traffic turning left off of
Stevens Creek Road onto Mayo Road. This causes traffic traveling north on Stevens Creek Road
to back up, causing serious traffic congestion, creating a safety hazard at this intersection, and
especially in the afternoon during rush traffic hours. The reply from public works: dear Ms.
Hunter, I am in receipt of your letter from Commissioner Boyles, whatever. By copy of this
letter, I asking Mr. Eric Thompson, assistant director of engineering division, to follow up in
having an analysis performed and to develop a response to your request within the next 60 days.
Of course, that was March 30, and I don’t know if anything has come from that or not but since
we’re talking about traffic, you’ve also got to consider right there that you have the Forest Lake
Manor nursing home, and those people in there normally are elderly and they’re trying to get out,
too. So I mean you’ve got a pretty tough intersection right there. If Doctor – if the optometrist,
Dr. Fishbein, he’s got to have - I assume the type of - I say optometrist, he deals with the eyes,
oculist or whatever, but his patients are going to be kind of elderly, too, I would think. So we
need to, if we’re going to do any negotiating we need to kind of negotiate something about the
traffic signalization at that intersection.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think you’re absolutely correct. Your letter bears out what I
just said. If you got the letter back in March, it’s September now, and that was just from a point
of analyzing it, you’ve got a letter in there that’s six months old, I don’t think you’re going to
work out something on a traffic light this afternoon. But I’m going to yield to Andy, because
these traffic lights can get into – if you’re talking about some political procrastinating that you
can get into the point of getting a traffic light up, that speaks volumes for doing it. And I think
you’re correct, it needs to be addressed, but to a point that’s why I’m saying it’s reality to a point
that y’all don’t need to get bogged down in dealing with a traffic light being a point of
compromise. I think what you are going to have to end up doing is vote up or down on the
merits that you’ve got out here at this point and then if you want to move ahead and deal with
getting a traffic signalization put in that area, not just to address this one particular situation, but
the park and everything else that you mention that is going into that part of west Augusta, this
Commissioner will be more than happy, as I’ve always been, to support that effort. But I just
38
don’t think you are going to have an afternoon deal on a traffic light where you’re going to get
that one resolved. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. One of the things to consider is, I think we
all remember the scraping up of funds we had to do for Goshen Drive, and right now as far as my
knowledge is concerned, the traffic signalization money is completely spent. Therefore, that
would put us in a position of having to take the money and reprogram it from another project or
defer this to SPLOST V, and a cost on average, without any intersection improvements, is about
$75,000. So I just thought I’d throw that information out. I am in favor of adding a light and
improving the traffic flow in that area, but I, too, think we have got to get in the business in
Augusta of turning these vacant lots into tax producing properties. I can’t think of a larger
inconvenience for all the citizens of Augusta than us having to raise taxes to cover costs when in
fact we could start growing our tax based by adding businesses such as this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you want to add something, George?
Mr. Patty: I don’t know, this might help move it along or it might now. But a year ago
when this came up, the traffic work study was done by traffic engineering, and at that time they
said that it didn’t come close to meeting the warranting. Now that’s not to say that traffic,
additional lanes, additional turn lanes in there wouldn’t be beneficial in there, because obviously
they would. That might be a low-cost solution, temporary solution. The situation could have
changed, but a year ago the signal was not warranted.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, you know I’ve always felt about the traffic signalization and
I had a real backwards way of approaching it, but I’ve always felt that little rope you run across
the street never gets everybody cause most of the people who’ve got an inconvenience, they
don’t go close to it. They find a way to cut through some other parking lot or somewhere else,
private property, so they don’t really get counted. A lot of times when you go out to take a count
on something, and that’s not just on that street, but everywhere else. I remember the problem we
had with the turn on Alexander Drive for years and traffic count said oh, we couldn’t put one up
there. Well, most of the people were going through the back of the service station, McDonald’s
and crossing in order to get there. That’s what you need to do, really, just send somebody out
there to watch the folk who turn. [inaudible] and put them on a video and you really catch
everybody who is going through there. So that’s an unscientific way of doing it but we finally
put the turn lanes up there cause they needed them. But I, the chair is open to deal with any
motion, whether it’s to try and work a compromise on this so that we can possibly give the
developer some direction that’s in here, or we make a decision in terms of where the
neighborhood is going with it, but I think it’s, you know, whatever you want to try to move or
do. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I want to make a motion that we approve with the
stipulation that we get public works to go out and look at ways and seek funding to
improve ingrss/egress to Mayo and the surrounding areas to improve that overall
intersection.
39
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion on the floor to approve the petition as is.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second to approve the petition as is. Is
there any discussion on the motion? No discussion on this end, no discussion on the other end.
All in favor of the motion to approve the petition as is will do so by the usual sign. I’m going to
vote no at this time, Madame Clerk, and let the record state why I’m voting no, is the fact that I
just voted on this last year and I made a commitment in terms of where and I thought this was
something that we were going to straighten out before this got back and I don’t think it is in that
state and I’m going – it won’t make any difference in terms of doing that, but I’m just leery of
reversing myself on something that I made a decision on that short a time ago.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown: May I say one more thing?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Brown: If you go on and let us get the building erected I’ll keep Stevens Creek
closed for a couple of year. It’s closed now, that would – we’re under construction. There is
very little traffic on Stevens Creek.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I thought you were fixing to tell you were donating a turn lane.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] but I see my attorney sitting over there to my left and I
see my Georgia Power man in the back. I don’t know [inaudible] what they costing, I’m fixing
to leave here in a year, maybe I’m in the wrong business, I need to start hanging traffic lights,
Jack. If y’all show me how to make them and maybe Mr. Long [inaudible] way to put them in
the air and I need to be in Willie’s traffic light hanging business. I tell you what, for $75,000,
something that turn red, green and orange, that’s a whole lot of money.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Boyles: I think it’s plain I voted no because I represent these fine folks and that’s my
job, is to represent them. But I do hope on the site plan and when traffic engineering looks at
40
this that that driveway will be appropriately placed to fit in with the traffic flow and whatever
else might happen there. So I hope that we can pass that information along with the motion, pass
the information along to our departments that develop the site plan.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think it’s order, Mr. Boyles, and I think in areas where we
have development that want to come in, I think it puts us in a very hard place to a point that the
neighborhoods have – whether it’s this neighborhood or any other neighborhood, has a very
concern and interest in what this may bring and I think it’s a positive development that’s coming
in, but I think at the same time where we know we are going to get these increases in traffic,
maybe a different type of approach [inaudible] be dealt with where the increase is coming and
we know they’re not going to get any less in those area and that’s something I think we seriously
need to look at. But Madame Clerk, I think we are going to 30.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, something germane to that particular issue.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
Mr. Cheek: something that was brought up earlier concerning Rock Creek and that area,
I know we’ve got a temporary bridge there now that’s washed out a couple of times. We’ve got
plans to realign Alexander Drive. But Rock Creek is one of the areas that we are going to have
to seriously look at improving the channelization and flow-through and also was mentioned
about Warren Lake, desilt that lake in order for it to accommodate additional outflow of storm
water. That particular little creek drains an awful lot of pavement, there’s a lot of construction in
the area and it’s certainly an area of concern of this commissioner and I would hope the whole
body would look into in SPLOST V to try to make some corrections to that. If we don’t, we’re
going to have continued bridge problems and flooding problems in that entire area.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Good observance, Mr. Cheek. Madame Clerk, if we can go to 30,
as we had scheduled, and then go over to 32. I was asking the attorney, because we stated earlier
that there might be enough information to address 32. I didn’t want to keep Mr. Dukes and those
here if we did not have to on 32 and were not going to discuss it. If we’re going to be able to
move to that after we finish 30, then let’s do that in that order and to be able to vote on it and to,
and to finish that item. If not, then I think we need to move it to a different time frame so that
they can be able to proceed with their order of business.
The Clerk:
30. Z-04-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of Hugh Pratt,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception for a convenience store per Section 21-2-
(b) affecting property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Fury’s Ferry
Road and Prattwood Drive and contains approximately 0.7 acres. (Tax Map 6 Part of
parcels 7 & 8) DISTRICT 7
41
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The petitioner – let me get – is the petitioner here? Let me get you
on board here. State your name and address here for the record.
Mr. Franke: My name is Billy Franke, I’m with Sherman & Hemstreet, LLC. I live at
4447 McManess Court, Columbia County. I’m here on behalf of the petitioner for the curb cut.
Would you like for me to go ahead and state my case?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, if you would.
Mr. Franke: I’ve got relatives from the neighborhood, I’m not going to get into a lot of
detail like we did at the planning and zoning meeting. I’ll try and cut it as briefly as I can. The
only concerns I’ve heard raised recently about this curb cut is in relation to the landscaping of
the neighborhood as done in that area. They’ve done an immaculate job. All we’re going to be
impacting is going to be a 30’ wide area of this whole street, as far as impacting what’s existing.
My client will probably maintain their area at the entrance to this roadway and a little
clarification on the petition, that we had some problems with in planning and zoning that wasn’t
quite clear. The only reason we’re asking for the zoning is just for a driveway. It’s the only
condition. In other words, we cannot develop the property, we cannot do anything further with
it, other than just a driveway. There are quite a few neighbors. I would say 90% of the
neighbors probably go to this store once a week, if I had to guess. I know there have been quite
a few petitioners against this curb cut. I know petitions are all according to who is presenting
them and how they’re wording them, as well, but I would like to stand with the recommendation
of planning and zoning. If y’all have any questions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any questions in reference to the petitioner at this time?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, let me just be clear. We’re only talking about the 30’ zone?
That’s the only zoning that’s being changed?
Mr. Franke: No, sir, the whole piece has to be rezoned, I think George Patty told me, to
be able to put a driveway through it, or cross it.
Mr. Boyles: That one section where the driveway would go?
Mr. Franke: I don’t think I’d have any problem zoning the section where the driveway is
going. We don’t have it located at this point. We don’t have [inaudible] delineated.
Mr. Patty: I think I can clarify that. The situation is you’ve got an existing convenience
store. Been there for a long time. It’s a few hundred, couple of hundred feet from the
intersection of Prattwood, which is a new road that was built to access this area when Riverwatch
Parkway was constructed, and if you think about it, it’s a park-type, boulevard-type roadway
with trees on both sides and the median, and the residents did most of that work themselves and
they feel pride of ownership for it and I’m sure that’s probably why they’re here today. But the
application is to rezone the tract - I don’t know the exact size - at the intersection of Prattwood
and Fury’s Ferry, and there was a lot of discussion on the floor of our meeting. There was some
42
discussion of denial and there was a motion to deny it and there was a motion to approve it, and
the actual motion that passed was to approve the rezoning of the property to B-1. Now I don’t
think that was their intent and I think that they would agree to the condition that states what Mr.
Franke just said, that if it’s approved it would be only for a driveway onto Prattwood Drive. But
the actual motion that was made to the planning commission was to rezone the property to B-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, any questions of Mr. Patty? The chair recognizes Ms.
Stewart and also if there are any persons here in opposition to item 30, if you would, raise your
hand for the record.
Ms. Stewart: They were here for the other thing. All the ones that raised their hands for
the first one, were for the same thing. So any that I’ve lost are here in spirit.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: We’ve hit Brookfield twice today.
Ms. Stewart: Okay.
Mr. Franke: I’m really not trying to pick on a subdivision. I’ve got relatives in the
subdivision. It’s just purely coincidental.
Ms. Stewart: There again, you know, you have your little copy in front of you that you
can see Prattwood Drive over here in the far left hand corner at the bottom and the little pink
circle is where you’re wanting to rezone that business. It has this cut in the road. Here I have an
aerial view that I hope all of you can see. This is the Richmond-Columbia County line that is in
pink, and I’m so glad that Circle K is mostly in Richmond County because you get the tax base
of that. At the end of Brookfield Parkway and Prattwood Drive, this house right here, even
though the pink line shows a little of it being in Richmond County, this is George [inaudible]
house and he pays Richmond County taxes, also, to you. If you see right here, this is Mark and
Stephanie Pratt’s. The Pratts own the land on both sides of the road. They have a house with a
driveway that goes up to this house here, and the pond is here, and then Mr. Pratt, his father and
mother live on Fury’s Ferry Road. You have a house in the same woods that open onto Fury’s
Ferry Road. So that gives you an idea. Right here we have all these homes on Brookfield
Parkway, have all of these beautiful trees, and then there is a triangle area. This is what I’m
wanting you to now look at, as far as – this is your GIS map, and this is where the gas station is
and this is where this triangle piece of land is, and then this is our center island that goes all the
way back to here, which really goes beyond the gas station. I hope you can see that. That’s how
nice and long that island is. At the end of it, we have a message board sign that we’ve just put
up. We’ve paid $2,500 a year for six years getting the grass cut. We’ve given Max Hicks $500
for a water meter, and we have water and we’re paying a water bill once a month. Not only on
this island, but also the Mayo Road island, I’ll throw that in, too, so we’re trying to work on
being pretty on Mayo Road and on Prattwood. So our concerns is if you look at your little
orange sheet again, you know how we were talking about all the business that was over here on
this side, I’ll have to hold this map up to show you that across the street, from Prattwood Drive,
43
there’s 53 acres that’s split between Richmond and Columbia County. And this is where we
have a red light, right there, and I know that that 53 acres is for sale and we know that’s probably
going to be developed as business. Many years ago I was here fighting Target that was going
there. I’m so thankful that Target went where it did because we got all of that tax base, and the
way they were going to design that shopping center, we were basically getting the parking lot.
That’s what you would have gotten in Richmond County. So I hope, however, they do that part
across the street, will be mindful of your tax revenue. What I’m fearful for is if you let this be
business on one side of Prattwood, then I’m afraid the Pratts are going to want that little triangle
shape of land to also be business. You’ll be setting the same precedent. So I and all of my
neighbors want this to just stay single-family residential. We do not want a cut into Prattwood
Drive. We feel like it would be unsafe with the island being there, and we just feel like
everywhere else, now, DOT is making the policy where you have to come out, where they have a
concrete median, make a right-hand turn. They’ve built the right-hand turn up at Twin Lakes
Drive, and that’s where the other part of this 53 acres I talk about, right now they have four
driveways off of that 53 acres cut from Twin Lakes Drive to Riverwatch Parkway. And then
from Riverwatch Parkway to Pleasant Home Road, they have two right-turn cuts on that 53 acres
I’m talking about. So there’s going to be plenty of business opportunities across the street, and
we are just asking you to let us continue to be, as George Patty rezoned all of Mayo Road and all
of the Prattwood area, single-family homes, and he’s told me we won’t have row houses there, it
will be houses that have grass around them. A single-family home. At one time I thought I
needed to be rezoned just single, R-1, but he said that our lots aren’t big enough to be just R-1, is
that what you were telling me, George?
Mr. Patty: Your lots are not [inaudible].
Ms. Stewart: So R-1A, we will have single-family homes. That’s what we’re praying we
can keep on Stevens Creek Road, that’s what we’re praying we can keep on Prattwood Drive.
And we do not feel like we need a cut onto Prattwood Drive. And then Marilyn Gary wanted to
get up to say something.
Ms. Gary: Yeah, I just wanted to remind everybody –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Gary: I’m sorry. My name is Marilyn Gary. I live at 835 Brookfield Parkway in
Brookfield. And I wanted to remind the commissioners that this road was built with an original
entrance to the subdivision off of Fury’s Ferry, was demolished during construction of the
Riverwatch Parkway and so it’s really designed to be an entrance to our neighborhood, not a
commercial access street or something of that sort. The neighborhood does have ownership in
this property, rightly or wrongly we have done the landscaping, we’ve done the water meter just
recently, and we do the mowing, have paid for the mowing all of these years. The changes in
this is going to really change the flavor of the road, to B-1, from neighborhood, is actually going
to encourage more traffic through the neighborhood. [inaudible] it is difficult to find your way
through our neighborhood to Mayo Road, but once you bring cars in and they start looking
around, you’re going to encourage more traffic through the neighborhood over to Mayo Road,
44
and I think that’s going to decrease the privacy in our neighborhood to a great extent and impact
the traffic on both of these roads, really, in a negative way. And I also just wanted to say there is
significant negative impact from that traffic to the property values in the neighborhood. We’re a
fairly secluded, private, quiet neighborhood, and anything that increases the traffic through the
neighborhood does have a negative impact on the property values in here. So while I understand
that coming out to a light would be a good thing, I don’t remember exactly when this was built,
but I know it was built after Prattwood Drive was built, that is, the gas station and I would have
thought that would have been their perfect opportunity to get such a cut. They didn’t go for it
then and I really kind of think that doing it now, after we’ve got our nice island and our
landscaping in and everything, getting a 30’ cut is an awfully big cut into this road. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there questions from the – go ahead.
Mr. Creech: I’m James Creech and I live at 3116 Fieldstone Circle, and I’ve lived there
in Brookfield since ’76. And I think anybody remembers when they built the parkway,
Brookfield became part of the parkway [inaudible] Stevens Creek. Everybody cut through from
Stevens Creek over to Fury’s Ferry, and it was dangerous. Now you’ve already allowed a cut on
Mayo. That traffic will come over and if you allow this other cut you’re going to allow this
traffic going right through a neighborhood. And you’re setting yourself up. Children get run
over, people have got to back out of their driveways. I’ve lived there long enough to know and I
can tell you, it can be a problem and it will be. So I hope that y’all take that into consideration
with putting up red lights or whatever.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there questions from the Commission at this time, either to the
petitioner or to planning commission director or to any persons representing the neighborhood?
We don’t have a motion, do we? Go ahead, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: When I came in the room today, the gentleman that represents Circle K and
Ms. Stewart were having a conversation and it sounded like they were making some sort of
progress, and I was just kind of curious if they did, what may have happened.
Ms. Stewart: I think from Don Grantham I learned that if you don’t come in and say that
there’s something that you’ve talked to somebody about, then you don’t really get listened to.
And all the residents do not want this cut on there. The only way I thought that I could turn this
from lemons into lemonade was to say okay, if they want to do this road, then I want them to
maintain the island, I want them to cut the 700’ grass, I want them to plant the flowers, and I
want them to pay for the water bill. And if they are so desirous of having to get this cut into
Prattwood Drive, that we have worked so hard since 1979, whether – at first it was at Riverwatch
and got wiped out and three times in my lifetime I have fought for the Brookfield West sign to
remain where it is. And you know, that’s the only compromise that I have not even had a chance
to share with my neighbors cause I didn’t even know who would even show up to support me
today, is if they have a desire to do this so badly. But they said that they don’t have the ability to
go back, you know, and make a decision like this right now. So since I had the circle K guy
here, you know I’m working on beautifying Washington Road, I’ve also asked him to make sure
he does I-20 at Washington Road, since there are two Circle K stations there. So we can hit him
45
up for more things. But I mean that’s just a side issue. But you know, that’s the only
compromise I see. We can save ourselves $2,500 a month and he can pay our water bills, Max
Hicks. Max lives on Fieldstone Circle. He knows what we’re talking about. So –
Mr. Weiss: May I address that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
Mr. Weiss: I’m Mike Weiss. My address is 521 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina. I am a consultant hired by Circle K for this rezoning, and I spoke to Ms. Stewart about
that. And unfortunately at this point I can’t financially obligate that expense to them from this
standpoint, but I did express with her that I would talk with Circle K. They are very interested in
being a neighborhood player. A lot of neighbors visit the store, the manager here is very familiar
with a lot of neighbors, speaks with them on a friendly basis, so we want to continue to be a
neighborhood store. And what we’re asking for is not to impact the neighborhood greatly, but at
this point I cannot substantially obligate Circle K to take on that expense, but I will like to offer
that I will talk to Circle K, explain to them Ms. Stewart’s position, and see if there is a maybe a
way they can contribute to that. But at this point, I couldn’t obligate them to that. But if I can
speak on behalf of Circle K, what we’re looking for here is we were, with the improvements
along Fury’s Ferry Road, we have suffered the loss of a left-turn lane in as well as out of the
Circle K station. And that dramatically impacts the business and the amount of volume that that
Circle K can do. And Circle K, because of that, is looking at this option here, to get access to
Prattwood Drive so we get access to the red light to allow people to come in and access that
station. And this would help out and minimize the impact that the loss of left turn lanes in and
out of that store would do. And that’s really all we’re asking for right now. We are not asking to
rezone it so we can increase the size of the gas station or to do any other amendments to the gas
station. All we’re asking is to rezone it just for the access road. Out intent at this point is to
maintain as many trees as possible along there. We’re not going to go in there and clear cut the
area. We are going to maintain every buffer that we possibly can. All we want to do is put a
nice little road in there so that cars can access the red light via the gas station. And [inaudible]
bring up, a lot of neighborhood folks, people living there visit the store, and if they’re coming
into that store and if we don’t get this access, they’re going to have to go out Fury’s Ferry Road,
go down to Twin Lakes, make a U-turn, come back to the red light, okay, and then have to make
a left into Prattwood Drive to access Brookfield West. And I think that a little access road out
the rear of the gas station is going to be much more convenient and a lot less dangerous than
having the access on Fury’s Ferry Road, make a U-turn, come back and make a left turn, to turn
in. And you know, in our minds we think that we’re helping the neighborhood from that
standpoint. We’re not trying to do anything detrimental to them. We want to continue to be a
player and continue to be a good neighbor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just ask this. And I know you all were just talking about it
and I’m sure they can understand it in terms of financial commitment and not being able to do
that on that type of notice. But have you all had conversation in reference to what their concerns
in reference to the congestion and safety, but also if you all are trying to provide a safer route?
Have you all had conversation about that and talked?
46
Ms. Stewart: Yeah, we met. I got about six people in my home two weeks before – Billy
Franke, and we talked about this and we weren’t in favor of it. And then I went out into my
neighborhood and got 192 people to sign the petition that Lena had. So we’re asking you not to
let him have a cut. But now I don’t know if y’all know what the Pratts want to do with the other
side of Prattwood Drive, either, that triangular shape that you have on your picture that is one
acre. It shows up, I think. But there’s 15 acres in this area I’m talking about, over here, so
whatever you allow to happen on one side of Prattwood Drive as far as a cut for business, I have
a feeling that that little triangle area, they’re going to want real good money for that, too, and
y’all always tell me things give you more tax base if it’s business. So all we’re here trying to
say, we’re 278 people that have been here since the 1970’s and before, and I moved here in ’79
and I have been talking to George Patty about my area and parks or whatever to try and now I’m
talking about drainage ditches, cause I know you’re not going to buy us any more land. And I’m
trying to get you to worry about our creeks that are up in west Augusta. So you know, that’s
where we are. I feel like and I think all these people, too, feel like we want it to stay a residential
road. We’d love to keep paying our $2,500 a month, a year, I mean, and taking care of it
ourselves as we always have. Is there anything, anybody else?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think I’ve long been on record as being
an advocate for protecting neighborhoods and concerns about cuts in the neighborhood streets
and so forth. The problem that we have here is that along Fury’s Ferry Road and Riverwatch, we
are going to see development occur. It’s not a matter of if, but when. The thing that we have to
do is to strike a balance between preserving and protecting the integrity of the neighborhoods
and developing in a sensible manner. As has been stated here, I’m sure that there are a lot of
neighborhood folks that do use this particular business. Perhaps, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we should
send this one back to see what Circle K is willing to do to assist in maintaining the aesthetic
amenities along that area, to work as a neighborhood store, as a neighborhood partner with the
neighborhood and get with Fran and company to see if we can’t come up with some form of
compromise. I think a very legitimate concern, it’s not necessarily this, but the adjacent
properties, and if we could set the tone for a good neighborhood partnership with this business
we can demand the same type of partnership with the additional development that will occur
eventually across the street. Again, I’ll go back to we have got to, for the sake of our
neighborhoods and our citizens, work on every particular business friendly project that we can in
order to grow the tax base because as y’all se with the budget coming up, we are hurting for
money to maintain the current level of services without seeing them diminish, and currently
without the growth in the tax base we’re going to see some real reduction in services which will
I’m
impact our ability to clean up our streets, repair our roads and our ditches and so forth. So
going to make a motion if we could to defer this to the next Commission meeting and
instruct staff and request that the developer and the neighborhood talk to see if there is
some common ground that we can come to.
I, too, would like to see us make lemonade out of
lemons. Perhaps there is some way we can actually improve this entire area and attract future
development that will be a compliment to the area, not a detriment. Again, I’ll say this. The
area will be developed eventually. It’s a matter of whether it’s going to complement the
47
neighborhood or be something that’s going to drive people out and make them want to leave. So
I make that in the form of a motion in the hopes that we can get a compromise and a cooperative
agreement beneficial to all people, and then bring that information back to the next meeting.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Weiss: May I address that, please?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second that’s on the floor. Are there any
questions and discussion from the Commissioner first? None being from the Commission, the
chair recognizes the petition for the purpose of question.
Mr. Weiss: Thank you. I have no problem bringing that up with Circle K and discussing
that Circle K and finding out if there is some way we can work out an agreement. I know some
of my concerns just right now is the fact that Circle K’s impact on Prattwood Road will only be
about 30’ wide and to affect just 30’ I think we will take out only about two trees on that road.
We’d be more than willing to replace those trees in another area or along the roadway which we
plan in putting in there, but I don’t know what their position is going to be, but I can just imagine
the question is going to be that because we’re going to impact 30’ on Prattwood Drive, we’re
being asked then to take on the expense of landscaping the island, as well as the irrigation and
maintaining the grass all the way up the road.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me cut you off for just one second. What I offered to
you in suggestion, and you know better the folk that you’re working with in that area. My
suggestion would be that I think the motion that’s on the floor is probably going to pass. I would
suggest that you probably utilize the time frame between the two weeks to find out first what you
may be being asked to present to the company, because it may be that and it may be something
else, and then in that frame, it can give you a better idea of where you might be going with it.
Because it may be that some of that, may not be. But I think what we’re trying to do today is to
get a positive [inaudible] together [inaudible] as the neighborhood there that is trying to maintain
its integrity, as well. If you hold on a minute, Ms. Stewart, let me get Mr. Grantham and Mr.
Cheek in. I want to try to go ahead and carry this motion.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I appreciate Mr. Cheek’s making
the motion and I think he gives some dialog to be done, but just rest assure because you’re going
back and talking to your company, from whatever decision they come up with, is not going to be
the decision of this Commission. So we’re going to weigh the decision as to what is best for the
community. And in the same token, Ms. Stewart is going to have to go back to her
neighborhood to discuss with them as to what needs to be done. So we don’t know that they are
going to come back and ratify this as well. But what we are doing is offering an opportunity to
get something worked out, and if it can, then it will be up to the decision of this Commission to
make at that point.
Ms. Stewart: The only thing I can say is, you know, since 1988 I’ve been trying to get
petitions for all of this and showing up. Four times last year I had to get together and get people
48
out, and we’re all just getting sick and tired of having to do this. That’s why I wanted to lay the
cards on the table, on Mayo Road, and show you where everything can be business, 300’ x 500’
on Stevens Creek Road, and it’s going to be business on Fury’s Ferry 300’ x 500’. But we don’t
want it encroaching back any further on Prattwood Drive. And I foresee, as Andy’s saying, we
know it’s going to be a business of some type on the other side, probably on that triangle. I can’t
see us negotiating, talking about any more. You’re just going to have to call it like it is. We
want to stay single-family and the only compromise is for this gentleman, if he wants to just take
over making the whole road beautiful. That’s the only compromise I see. You know, I do have a
life and I’m not – I’m going to Washington, D.C., I’m not even going to be here for the next little
bit, so I cannot revolve my whole life around this. And I don’t think there’s any more that I can
do to show you about this whole area and educate you any more.
Mr. Weiss: I have no problem with what the Commission has asked. So we’ll do
whatever you guys feel is right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The thing that we’ve all got to
realize is, and this is the same with my vote on Windsor Spring Road earlier, is Windsor Spring
Road 20 years ago was two lanes. Fury’s Ferry Road 20 years ago was two lanes. We have –
Riverwatch didn’t even exist. If you go to California, if you go to Arizona, you go to other
places, whether it’s sound barriers or enhanced landscaping. I mean there are ways that nice
neighborhoods co-exist in areas that have changed to become more commercial, to have wider
lanes of traffic and higher flow. Fury’s Ferry is a zoo when it comes to traffic going out to
Columbia County and coming in in the morning. We all realize that. What we’ve got to do, and
this is where the partnership between the citizens and the businesses and the Commission has got
to come into play, is we’ve got to find a way to both grow our tax base and be business friendly
while preserving these neighborhoods and the people that have lived here all of these years and
made such great contributions to our community. And so that’s all that I’m asking, is that we go
back and look. I certainly think maintaining the entire area is probably unreasonable in some
respects, but I think with a 30’ cut and perhaps the company coming back with some maybe
looking at some enhanced landscaping, some more azaleas and other things that are going to
make it nice. I really don’t think – and it’s like Windsor Spring Road, I’ll go back, I’m very
protective of my neighborhood and this neighborhood, too. What will the real [inaudible] traffic,
the increase be? I don’t think it’s going to be as bad as we think it is, but it is a concern for the
community to have any additional cars come through there of people that don’t live in that
neighborhood. So I just encourage us all to go back to the drawing board and see if we can come
up with something that’s going to be beneficial. We do have to set the tone, because additional
properties that come before this Commission, unless there is really legitimate reasons we’d be
crazy not to grow some additional business across the street. And we’re not in a position where
we have a choice. We’ve got acreage all over this city that we’ve deferred development on for
one reason or another. The key is going to be smart development that is complimentary to the
surrounding communities, and I see this all over the country. West Palm Beach, Miami, and
other places, where nice neighborhoods do co-exist. It’s all just a matter of how you do it. And I
just hope that in the next two weeks that we’ll be able to come up with a development plan that’s
49
going to set the tone for that other acreage across the street, as well as meet the needs of the
neighborhood and the business.
Mr. Weiss: I believe we can do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re going to go to Commissioner Sims for final comment and
that’s going to conclude our discussion. We’re going to vote on the motion.
Ms. Sims: I’d just like to ask you, on the cut, how many homes are we talking about
affecting, that will be affected on Prattwood, approximately? If you’re talking one home?
Ms. Stewart: Mark and Stephanie Pratt have the house I showed you with the pond that
live up in there. There are no homes right now.
Ms. Sims: Okay.
Ms. Stewart: That’s what – it has all be rezoned for single-family homes.
Ms. Sims: Okay. But right this minute, there’s one home?
Ms. Stewart: Just that one home. It’s in Columbia County.
Ms. Sims: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There has been adequate discussion. All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Weiss: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Ms. Stewart, do you still have a neighborhood
meeting on October, do we? That’s what I have listed. That will be the night before the
Commission meets the next day.
Ms. Stewart: I don’t know if I’ll be here or not.
Mr. Boyles: You don’t know if you’ll be here?
Ms. Stewart: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Well, if you all meet, please, I would like to be notified and I’d like to
attend. Whenever you all meet.
Ms. Stewart: We’ll have a meeting, but I’m just not sure if I’ll be there.
50
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty, if you can help to facilitate that in the meantime. Okay.
Thank you so much. Okay. Mr. Shepard, are we ready to move on 32?
The Clerk: Are you going to do 29?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, if we could go ahead and resume, and go back to
item 29. We skipped over it there and I think it’s probably – may have gone on the consent
agenda.
The Clerk:
29. Z-04-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that should the wood mulching yard cease to
operate the zoning shall revert to the R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) Zoning; a
petition by Chris Oglesby, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to Zone HI (Heavy
Industry) with a Special Exception to allow a wood mulching yard, per Section 24-2 (17) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
located at 2851 Gordon Highway and contains 3.73 acres. (Part of Tax Map 64 Parcel 4.1)
DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is sort of a specialized request. This guy wants to do something,
community service, keep this material out of our landfill. It’s an undeveloped area between gate
1 and gate 2 on the opposite of Gordon Highway. There is no development in the area that it
would affect. We recommend that you approve it with the condition.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions from the Commission to Mr. Patty?
Mr. Williams: Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the petitioner here, George?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t think so, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion to approve by Commissioner Smith.
51
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor
of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Ms. Sims and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Ms. Sims: It did pass? I didn’t hear you.
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Sims: Would you just be sure to, for the record, I abstained.
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are we now on page 8 totally, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. We have got a couple, so that we don’t forget them, let’s –
we need to get - before we get out of here, we need to get 34 and 35 out of the way that’s on
there. Let’s proceed, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: Where do we go now, 32?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go ahead and move with the items we’ve got.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
32. Motion to approve an amendment to the Georgia Power Franchise Ordinance
regarding utility relocation expense allocation (prior rights). (Approved by the Commission
in meeting September 13, 2004 – second reading)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we have had this before the body the last time. I have
[inaudible] current version of the agreement, let me indicate that we’ve tried to forecast how it
may affect the other agreements that we have involved, and I have been furnished two of those
agreements. For example, the Knology franchise, we would be able to – we would not have any
adverse financial consequences if we move the poles and wires to Georgia Power, under their
agreement we would not have any adverse consequences to the city under the Knology franchise
agreement, nor under the Charter Communications. We have not been able to secure copies of
the others [inaudible]. We are attempting to do so while the meeting was progressing. Now I
52
can go with part of the story or we can wait until another time such as a recessed portion of this
meeting, where we can go ahead with an explanation again of this agreement that we have before
us. The public works department does support it. I can go over it and remind you of what is
covered and what isn’t covered. It just means that a decision of the body needs to be made at
this point in time. So if you want to move with only two of these in hand and having been
reviewed by me, or would you want to delay it, if we’re going to recess, to any other time later in
the week or later today to do that, I’ll be happy with the [inaudible] of the body on that at this
time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I know the engineering services chairman wants to address
this and probably make a motion of some type. My feeling is if everybody is comfortable, we
can go ahead on it and move mainly for the reason that if whatever is contained in the – any
other agreements, and I go back to what I said a couple of weeks ago, whatever is contained in
those agreements, if we still got to get a relationship agreement or ordinance done in order to
move forward, it may mean we may have to do more with dealing with this one and then
addressing those others from an update that might be in there, as opposed to continuously, you
know, delaying this one. That’s just my personal opinion with it. Mr. Cheek, I’m going to
recognize you. You’ve got your hand up.
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And we must be psychic friends today. I
think you’ve said exactly what was on my mind. If this will free us up to begin working on some
of the projects that are currently delayed, I’d sort of like to see this passed today, with the caveat
that we pursue the other utility providers, service providers with the same type of arrangement.
We’ve got several projects that are on hold, pending power relocation and different things, and
I’ll make
I’d certainly like to see us move forward, and if this passes today, will accomplish that,
a motion that we approve it, again with the caveat that we pursue all the other service
providers for a similar type arrangement.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think of the two I have checked, Andy, they’re quite favorable to
us. If we have to move utilities that are in our right-of-way, then it is pretty clear, the text is the
same in both the Knology agreement and the Charter Communications agreement, it says that
they will pay if we have to lawfully relocate or reconstruct the grade of the street, sidewalk, other
public way that that utility is in, then they will relocate at their expense. I’m talking about
Knology. And we’ve talked with representatives of Georgia Power, and of course they have pole
sharing agreements. So if we move the Georgia Power poles and wires, then what I call the
tenant utilities, the Knology, the others, they would have to go as well. So this is just to remind
the Commission, this is for moving of their facilities within our right-of-way. Now if we
condemn in a private, if we condemn private property that is subject to a utility easement
already, then we would have to pay compensation. But this will stop the controversy of prior
rights in public projects. It will facilitate the movement ahead, particularly of Warren Road. It
will facilitate the termination of the dispute regarding the payment for the Laney Walker project.
53
Others that are favorably implicated from the city’s standpoint would be the I-20/I-520
interchange. But what’s chiefly excluded from this would be projects that involve beautification
or projects that are involving the high voltage, 42 kilovolt lines. So we kind of went through the
ordinance the last time and were wondering what we will be giving up in the future. Well, I
can’t really say that, but certainly I see many projects right now that would be financially
beneficial to Augusta to continue to go ahead with this.
Mr. Cheek: Does that include – I know we had mentioned Bungalow Road and Barton
Chapel Road?
Mr. Shepard: It would include, it would include those which Georgia Power has the
service area. Now it would not include those areas which Jefferson Electric, for example, would
have the service area.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] those two projects.
Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Dukes is here, and he’s indicating that those two would be, would
be included. The language talks about present and future projects in our right-of-way, and I
think it would be – we would not have to [inaudible] researching the issue of who was on first,
who was there first, simply in that right-of-way for their distribution facilities, which are not
otherwise excepted, they will pay for the cost of the relocation. Mr. Mays, if you want that on
the record, Mr. Dukes has signified that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I just hope that you’ll, we will recognize Mr. Walter
Dukes and thank him for what he has done. I think this is going to be a tremendous financial
impact on the citizens of Augusta by not having to pay for that relocation, and I think it’s awful
commendable of Georgia Power and I think they’ve been trying to do this statewide. I think Mr.
Dukes told me they don’t want to fight with the cities, and we don’t want to fight with Georgia
Power. I hope we’ll take the time to really thank him for his efforts on this project.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well noted, Mr. Boyles. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: And let me indicate that the amendments specific to Augusta are the text
that we considered before. Ms. Smith of public works indicated that she had a comfort level
with them as tendered to us. She had some other problems with when exactly the relocation
order might go forward, how quickly Georgia Power would respond to that, but she feels that in
a dialog with the Georgia Power officials that these matters can be worked out within the scope
of this document. So although I can’t say – don’t let me indicate to you that it is as time specific
as these other franchise agreements are – it is not. And if you want to look at that language, I’ll
be happy to show it to you. But nevertheless, she says operationally and she called in over the
course of the meeting, she said operationally she could support that in concept. So that was
something that I was weighing in the equation, and could she live with this thing as brought forth
before. But I’m not putting in specific times that you shall move the distribution facilities.
54
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion on this item? If not, all in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go on and run a [inaudible] and if there are legal questions
that we run into in reference to some of these, then we’ll deal with that at that time [inaudible]
counseling that has to be done. But let’s go ahead and get to the numbers and go to 33, Madame
Clerk.
The Clerk:
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY;
33. Adopt Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the execution,
delivery and performance of an Intergovernmental Contract, a Bond Purchase Agreement
and related documents.
Mr. Colclough: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Can I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Get to that mike. They can’t hear you on that other end.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] we bring things to the book, like bonding and other contracts,
and we don’t have any backup information for that. Haven’t seen the contract. In the past,
we’ve had separate contracts with Evergreen and all this other stuff, and I don’t think we need to
go ahead and vote on something where there’s no background information, no one has given me
anything to look at about – there’s nothing in there concerning this item. I don’t have it. But I
need to see some documentation. I need to see a contract. I’m not going to get stuck with
another Evergreen contract.
Mr. Shepard: I understand your position, Mr. Colclough, and what I’d like to do, to raise
the comfort level of the body, the authority had to meet today in order to move this project along.
The authority was attended by four of the five members, everybody but the Mayor. I still have
Mr. Todd Barnes here and Mr. Mark Johnson, who will explain the financing of the bonds. And
here again, the documents that are being requested for approval in this body are on my desk.
You couldn’t move forward today until the authority met, and now the authority has met, and I’d
like to have him give you a little explanation of the financing of the bonds, what we’re going to
do. This is a matter that came out of one of the engineering services work sessions. It was
determined that we wanted to look at the landfill and see what was needed for capital
improvements at the landfill. Basically, it’s been determined that the landfill is basically running
out of space, and this bond issue was put together in order to do the principal work of expanding
55
the cell there at the landfill, so there is [inaudible]. Mr. Johnson could come forward and say
that there is about 11 months of air space remaining at the landfill. We needed to go ahead and
develop a cell, we needed to go ahead and do equipment there. We needed to have a service
building, we needed to have a convenience center. So this documentation was put together as a
result of that work session, it was brought forward as solid waste authority in order that the
matter could be activated, we could use the already existing solid waste authority statute to create
our local authority, which will be self supporting by a series of fees, basically tip fees at the
landfill. So I’d be happy to spread all of these documents before you, but we couldn’t bring
them until the authority met. It met at one o’clock today, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Well, then why is it here? Why are we going to vote on that if we don’t
have the documentation, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well –
Mr. Colclough: I understand –
Mr. Shepard: It’s right here.
Mr. Colclough: Well, I don’t have it. You have it, but I’m the one that’s got to vote. But
why didn’t we get the documentation to let us know – I know about the landfill running out of
space, I’m well aware of that. But there is no documentation in the backup material.
Mr. Shepard: Documentation was Fed-Ex’d in to me this morning and some were
brought by Mr. Todd Barnes. That’s why – and he brought it to the meeting of the authority
today.
Mr. Colclough: I don’t have it.
Mr. Shepard: Well, yes, sir. I’ll be happy to bring it.
Mr. Colclough: I don’t have it. And I’m the one that has to vote.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I understand that. But I’d still ask the body to hear from these two
gentlemen who appeared at our authority meeting and I’ll be happy to bring these matters to you,
Mr. Colclough, right now. Here again, my receipt of this was in very short timing from when I
got it. I think last week our problem was we had Hurricane Ivan in Florida and they couldn’t get
some of the documents up here. We called the meeting and then recessed it, and it was recessed
today. I have everything that can be – it’s full disclosure. Certainly everything can be seen here.
I’ll bring it to you. But we got on sort of a short time line because of the adverse weather in
Florida last week and then I got the information, as I say, today. Mr. Barnes? If you’ll hear from
Mr. Barnes, and you should also hear from Mr. Johnson, I think your comfort level would be
significantly raised and I’ll give you copies of the document to look at. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
could I call Mr. Barnes, please, and let him go through this?
56
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Barnes: I’m Todd Barnes with A.G. Edwards, the underwriter for the bonds. As Mr.
Shepard was saying, we sold the bonds just yesterday for the purpose of funding the landfill
project. And then met with the authority earlier this afternoon, prior to the Commission meeting,
for the authority to approve the action of the bond resolution and their portion of the inter-
governmental contract. The resolution that you’re being asked to approve this afternoon will be
to approve your portion of the inter-governmental contract between the Commission and the
authority. The bonds, $11,475,000 in bonds to finance the project. The bonds are to be repaid
over a period of 15 years. The majority of the bonds will be repaid over the first six years and
relate to the cell construction. Those bonds will be repaid from the revenues that are generated
within the waste management fund and there is a sufficient coverage there to do that. The
purpose of the inter-governmental contract with the Commission is to put in effect the county’s
full faith and credit behind those bonds, which gives you a higher credit rating and therefore
lower interest rates on the bonds. There is no expectation that that will ever have to be called
upon, but it does provide that enhancement to it to give you the better rates. The bonds were
sold based on that. We got an overall interest rate of 3.13% on the bonds, which are very
attractive rates. As I mentioned, the bonds were sold yesterday. With this action today, we’ll
th
move forward with the validation of the bonds and a closing on the 7 of October, at which times
the funds would be delivered. So it is important for the Commission to take action today in order
to confirm those orders and to move forward with the next step that is required to get this process
closed and funds delivered so that they can start in on the construction of the project. Mark and I
both have information as it relates to any details of the project or the – any other information
about the results of the sale. Be happy to speak to any of those items, as we did with the
authority earlier this afternoon.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions?
Mr. Colclough: Just delivered me a ton of information and I’m supposed to go through
that in five seconds [inaudible].
Mr. Barnes: You have [inaudible]. Let me just tell you what you have. Again, primarily
the resolution, which authorizes – the inter-governmental contract. The other items you have
there are the bond purchase agreement and then continuing disclosure certificates, which just
says that information that was in the prospectus that was mailed out that relates to the county, the
county just has an obligation to update that information on an annual basis, which Mr. Persaud is
well aware of.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Colclough.
57
Mr. Colclough: It’s nice to have a committee look at these things, but I think more than a
committee has to vote on them. I think everybody need to get a copy of this data so that we can
read it and understand what we’re voting on. I know the critical need of the expanding of the
landfill. I also know the critical need of reading this documentation before you can vote on it.
So I mean you just handed me this right now to soothe my comfort level, it ain’t going work. It’s
too much information [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any – Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Colclough, I understand your
position about these contracts and I been leading that charge for some time. But we did have an
authority meeting this afternoon at one o’clock and those members, Commissioner Mays,
myself, Commissioner Boyles, the attorney, Mr. Russell, Mark from engineering services, from
public works, I mean, was there. We went over a lot of information and there’s still some stuff –
that’s why I hire my attorney, Mr. Shepard, so he can do work for me. I trust him. We had a
great meeting, I thought, and to get on the fast track, to get some things done, we even had Mark
to tell us about the potential time that we needed to do all this. And all this was done. Mr.
Russell, I think, may have not been here. Fred, somebody mentioned about getting their backs
against the wall. I think it was Mr. Boyles. In that meeting, about how we always wait and get
up against the wall. And at this point we are not up against the wall. We’re trying to [inaudible].
I understand your cautiousness and I don’t question that at all. I seen some things come through
here that we should have stopped, but we voted on them anyway. But this is one, I think we
need to go ahead and proceed with so we can get on target, to develop this piece of property, to
make it feasible, with the other structure that supposed to be coming in later on to help us with a
revenue side of this. This is something that I think we really need to do. So Mr. Colclough, I’m
asking you to join this team and help us go ahead and make this unanimously to, to be a part.
I’m asking you to let me [inaudible], Mr. Shepard, your legal opinion, that’s who you pay. But
trust me this time to – let me be your mouthpiece. I don’t get no pay, but that’s all right. I just
think that we dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s. I think that we got a good situation going,
we got a real good rate and I’m proud of that and I think we need to move, it’s time to do that.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have a motion on the floor, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we don’t.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion on that end? Any on this
end? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Grantham out.
58
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Colclough, if Evergreen come up in this thing, you can fire me as
your attorney.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: There is no Evergreen in this document.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
34. Select voting delegate for the Association of County Commissioners Annual Fall
Conference.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I’d like to nominate Commissioner Tommy Boyles, please.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Third.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. For Commissioner Boyles. Any other
nominations? The chair doesn’t recognize any.
Mr. Colclough: I move the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
35. Select voting delegate and alternate for the National League of Cities Conference.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
59
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to nominate Mr. Richard Colclough.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Third.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And you need to deal with an alternate.
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to nominate Mr. Williams as the alternate.
Mr. Williams: Second.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: What was that?
Mr. Williams: Nominated me to be the alternate, I said second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t know why he seconded it.
(Laughter)
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
36. Consider request for 2004 budgetary adjustment for additional funds for Legal
Indigent Defense in the amount of $460,000 funded from Reserve account.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Shepard? I mean Mr. Shepard, our attorney.
60
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Whichever. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission, Mr. Long was here for a while and had to leave for another meeting. He asked that
in his capacity as a member of the tripartite indigent defense committee that the budgetary
adjustment be made. He indicated to me that the present resources were inappropriate,
insufficient for the present year. I understand that well. We need to continue to provide legal
defense in our courts because of the need to have the convictions properly protected by the
defense. The convictions, if they’re not protected, could be set aside. So these are ongoing
obligations of this body to provide that. We are, of course, looking at a public defender that may
come in as of the first of the year and change the system. But we need to get through this year
first, and I would ask on behalf of Mr. Long and the tripartite indigent defense committee that
the budget adjustment we granted. We looked at all the possible funds, the availability of
money, and the only one is the reserve fund. That fund is expressed in the resolution that Mr.
Persaud has prepared and I have approved, and I would ask that the legal indigent defense
expenditures be increased by $460,000 and that the funding source for that be the fund balance
reserve in an equal amount of $460,000.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My understanding is we are not means
testing people that come in and claim indigency, as it’s “too difficult” – this is a half million
dollars out of reserve.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I understand that. My understanding is that there are screenings
going on so that you have to pass a screen before you’re able to go into this program which pays
your legal fees. I have been aware of nothing to the contrary, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: What I’m hearing from different attorneys, and it’s amazing attorneys will
say things to you but not come out in public, a lot of them. But that people are asked if they’re
out of work, and naturally when they’re locked up they’re out of work, so they check the blank
that says “I don’t have a job.” Well, they have a job as soon as they get out. My concern is that
we do look at means testing and I’m a firm believer in what I was taught – is when a person is
guilty of a crime, I think everybody’s entitled to a fair and adequate defense, but if they’re guilty
of a crime they should repay their debt to society, and certainly we need to look at every avenue,
just like we did with indigent medical care, what other cities are doing and all to try and offset
these costs. This is going to be a vampire on the throat of our city’s budget, sucking the
lifeblood out of it in the future and basically causing us to reduce services in other areas. And
also for the coming year, I would love to see what cost-saving measure are being done and how
hours are being calculated and so forth for this, the time that lawyers spend on this. It just seems
to me that it’s become overnight a large cash cow and I think a lot of people are trying to ride it
to market. So I’d just really like to see us put some cost constraints and performance measures
on this. Also, some means testing to make sure that people that are claiming indigency are in
fact people that can’t afford it and all those others that can need to be paying their own way.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
61
Mr. Shepard: Let me indicate this, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Sibley has been in discussions with
us at the staff level about the coming Georgia public defender’s office. This is going to be a
circuit-wide office. He’s going to take office on January 1, 2005. There will be a ramping up, if
you will, of that program and then the tripartite committee will be going out of business. So
there will be staff attorneys largely replacing the system of private contract attorneys. We talked
to Mr. Sibley and he indicates that he can start with a part-time system and some full-time
attorneys. One of the great benefits that this public defender system will bring to us is that we
will no longer have to bear the expense of capital cases. The capital – if you look at their budget
for the previous year in which we tried I think one major capital case for perhaps three to four
weeks, that was a major bump in the expenditures. Those will be eliminated. And that will be, I
think, a step forward. The system has been mandated from the Legislature with funding which is
not adequate to the entire project. So if you notice the way that the funding of the public
defender has been handled, it’s been handled through an increase in court costs. It’s a concept
that I, quite frankly, advocated for many years, but it finally received state attention. It just
didn’t receive enough funding, so I think that one thing that should be addressed with the state
Legislature is the more adequate funding of the public defender’s office. So I think to answer
your question about the current tripartite committee and its arrangements, there is an end to the
bleeding and that would be next year. But I think we’ve got to get – how we get from here to
there, we presently have obligations that we should fulfill through the committee and its
participating attorneys. So that’s – I mean the long term is we’ll get some relief. But I don’t
think that we should be in a position of breaching – well, not breaching, but not funding this
because basically the business of moving these cases needs to go on. If you don’t move the
cases, you have a backup at the level of incarceration, pre-trial incarceration. What Mr. Sibley is
indicating is that there will be performance measures for the staff attorneys, which is something
that is a newer concept and that will be – they will be reporting regularly to the governing
authority. And Jack Long has made the commitment that they will try to keep the budget and the
expenditures just as low as possible on the tripartite committee. So it’s, here again it’s
something that I would suggest you bear the pain for the immediate future, with some relief
coming in sight. It would be better relief if we had a more stable and larger state funding source,
but we do not yet have that. I think we should have that. And it would be all cycling into effect
with the public defender’s office.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The chair is going to recognize Commissioner Hankerson and then
Commissioner Williams, but let me jump in from one second, and I’m not going to dictate from
the chair. But let me just ask two quick questions. One, do we have a bill for this much that’s
behind and pending, or are they asking for this to be done? That’s my first question.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not a, there’s not a bill in that amount. This is an appropriation to
continue the program through the end of the year.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I’m going to let the other Commissioners suggest something
as we move on, but I think if there is not a back bill that’s past due at this point, and
Commissioners are going to be meeting with other Commissioners from 159 counties over the
next four to five days, that we don’t need to approve anything today, not coming out of a reserve
account in that amount of money. Now I’m not saying we’re not going to have to make a move,
62
but I think to a point this is going to be an issue that’s bigger than Richmond County in reference
to how that legislation is going to go. Sure, we can meet with our Legislative Delegation. That’s
just one delegation that’s going be there. But this is a statewide problem that’s being dropped
down on top of counties right now like a ton of bricks that we are going to have to deal with on a
lot of different things as it relates to the judicial system period. And I just wanted to throw that
in there to a point that if we don’t owe them at this point, I think there are a lot of things that
need to be discussed in reference to planning their budget, dealing with where they are going to
be housed, and to the amount of money. Now we got to comply by the law, I understand that.
But I think there is some discussion that ought to be done other than the point of taking that out
of reserve today. And I just wanted to throw that in there before we got a motion out there, cause
I’m going to tell you right now, I’m going to – if that comes up today, I’m going to case a no
vote on that one today. Now where [inaudible] down the road to deal with that, that may change
in terms of how we put in there and how we are going to deal with getting some of our money
but I’m just going to have to say that at that point. But you need to jump in on that right now,
Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. There are some outstanding bills that need to
be paid. And I do not know the exact number. But we have an ongoing amount that would
occur. They’re estimating about $90,000 a month.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But it ain’t $460,000?
Mr. Russell: No, but I do need something today, or I’ve got some people that aren’t
going to actually get paid for work we owe them for at this particular point in time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was why I raised that question. We got some that we owe,
that’s incurred, we ought to pay them, in fact we ought to pay anybody that we owe. And I agree
with that. But I’m talking about as we move ahead to deal with something different. I think
we’ve got to realize that we getting into a whole new area on this thing and how that’s going to
be done. And it would be wise if our colleagues, I know the attorney is meeting in a certain area,
the administrator is meeting, as well as Commissioners, but this is something that needs to be, I
think, networked with your, with your other Commissioners in between sessions and classes as to
a point as to how this is affecting folk, and this is one of the things that I think needs to be try
and be pushed. Now we talking about [inaudible] policy, this is something that’s affecting every
county in Georgia. And this is the time that we try to get some of this on the agenda.
Commissioner Hankerson, you have the floor, and then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m very concerned, I’m seriously
concerned about these legal costs. I got a couple of questions I’m going to ask to lead into my
comments. The record need to be known how much we’ve already spent this year for indigent
defense. David, do you have that amount available?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, Commissioner. The 2004 budget is $1.7 million.
Mr. Hankerson: That we’ve already spent?
63
Mr. Persaud: They have already exhausted all their professional fees for legal
counseling, yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. $1.7 million.
Mr. Persaud: If I may, as of September 10, we were holding bills totaling $90,000 that
need to be paid.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. You know, I keep hearing that it’s mandated, and I understand by
what is mandated, but we are paying out some things that we don’t see any figures, we don’t see
no accountability of what’s being paid. I have a serious concern, how can we be sure that we are
getting the maximum out of our dollars that we are spending in this indigent defense? I know of
certain incidents where inmates said that they hadn’t seen an attorney. I know of certain
incidents where the individual now have gone to prison and before he went to prison he sat at
Phinizy Road for almost a year waiting on a transcript and waiting to see a indigent defense
attorney. Did not see one, have not gotten a transcript. I saw the attorney the other day, he still
say he waiting on a transcript, and the guy been already sentenced. So I don’t think that’s
adequate coverage, of whether we getting what we paying for. I know that each citizen has to
has – the law says that they need some kind of attorney to represent them, but we are paying out
the big bucks and I’d like to be sure that we are getting what we’re paying for, too. Also, I think
we need to look at some surcharges to help us with this, because the figures are getting larger,
not smaller. And I think we are really headed for some tough, tough times here, when we are
going into our reserve like this for this kind of money and I just think that we need to look at it
seriously. I serve on the board for GMA and I do take what you said, Mr. Pro Tem, that we’ll
th
address that, and also when we will – I’ve been asked to host, that we host the 7 District
conference this year, coming the end of this year. So they’ll be here, some of them will be here
in Augusta, so we can address that. Cause I think it’s a serious issue that we need to address
with our legislative body to also help with this, cause this is getting very, very serious and out of
hand. But I’d like to see some figures and so forth, other than coming back and asking for half a
million dollars twice a year. We don’t see anything – I’m about like you now, Richard, on the
contract. I don’t see what we’re spending all this money for, going into reserve for. Somebody
need to give an account of it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I can give you some first hand
information about that facility but I’m not going to get into that right now. But I do think that we
need to make sure that we are getting what we are paying for. The mandate is one thing and
when the state mandates some things we got to do that. But what check and balances do we
have? I mean we can’t just sign a check and turn it over. I see the attorney got hand up so
maybe he’s got some check and balance. But when you talking about that kind of facility or that
kind of service, talk get around the street and it certainly get around in the jail. And we got a lot
of repeaters that comes back and once this, this, this gets out, I can foresee it growing and getting
into a larger amount. But we ought to have some check and balances, that some reports ought to
64
be back to this body, that we’ll know what is paid out for A, B and C, what the cost is for A, B,
and C. We ask now and if it’s mandated, I mean we need to go ahead and do it. But we are
asked now to come up with half a million dollars and nobody gives any check and balances, just
you know we need to put it out there. So the attorney got his hand up, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I
can yield to him maybe he can help me out with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
Mr. Shepard: If I could, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I think the
check and balance you’re looking for in the current system occurs in the tripartite indigent
defense committee. They oversee the cases that are assigned to them. They have frequently cut
expenses, cut the size of bills which they thing are excessive. That is, that is the current check
and balance. Here again, there’s already been a policy change made, so that will only continue
for the next three months or so. But there is your check and balance. I’m sure Mr. Long could
be more specific about that, but he left, he left me with his plea for extra money and he didn’t, he
didn’t leave me with much more ammunition. But I think that that committee, it consists of Mr.
Long and some of the judges of Superior Court, there are members of the public, and they do
review this. They’ve taken that very seriously as part of their jobs with the indigent defense
procurement, I guess is as good a word as any. And here again, it’s not a system that’s not really
going to grow any more through the tripartite committee. It’s going to be a public defender
system, which we will have implemented and will have a contract with the public defender, both
in Superior Court, and if we choose we can have it in State Court. A lot of the administrative
burden will be handled by the State, but you just really need to get out of the current, of the
current system which would include the unpaid bills to date and a forecast of bills to the end of
the year.
Mr. Williams:
I hear you and I understand, Mr. Shepard, and if I was in that position I
understand that they’re making those cuts to save and do, but that don’t do nothing for this body,
who going to have to approve this money probably every year. And we need to see something,
something they cut, something they changed, something that was at one rate, what’s paid to this
group, what it cost for that. I mean that’s a open door. And I’m not opposing, but I can’t
support it when I don’t know all the details. Now we got somebody in place. We ain’t just
putting the money somewhere and they coming by to get what they to, I understand that. I
understand that there is somebody who is going to make some cuts on things that they don’t
think is feasible, they don’t think is the way to do it, to try to save. But that’s not enough. We
ought to have something to know exactly where every dollar is going. And when you asking for
that kind of money, this body ought to be able to put their hands on some numbers, some figures
to match the dollar per item that’s going to be spent. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And if I
I make a motion that we pay those bills that’s due right now and you
need to make a motion,
know, bring this back up at a later date in order to try to facilitate it to get it where it need
to be but there ought to be some check and balances added in there, too, now.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
65
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second. Let me, let me, let me make one
suggestion. I think that’s a good motion. Because of the magnitude of asking for money coming
out of the reserve and you want to bring this back at a later date, it’s one that obviously requires
some time and some adjustment. Would the Commission probably be receptive, particularly if
we may have to end up with, with two to three items that this Commission needs to take up and
probably devote the time to them on a date by itself, dealing with it, that this could be maybe at
the end of the agenda on that particular day of doing that, and that some detailed questions that
could be asked about that? In other words, paying the bills like you are saying, but then if we
end up say with a called meeting to deal with some other things, say a week from now, we could
put that on there at the end of that particular meeting to get into a more detailed discussion since
we’re going to be looking at $300,000 or $400,000 coming out, being asked to come out, rather,
of reserve account in order to do that with. That’s just something I’m throwing out to my
colleagues to a point that – because when you look at what we’ve got, this started off where it
didn’t look like you had a large agenda in terms of numbers, but you had delegations, you had
neighbors, you got a lot of zoning that got into a time frame, and I think you are obviously going
to have to deal with indigent defense. The flip side of that and the worst case is that you deal
with some federal court order things that I don’t think we want to get into that situation at all.
But I do think there are questions that we need to ask about the whole system and I’m just
looking for a little feedback on that. That doesn’t necessarily have to be [inaudible] into the
motion, but I’m just saying would that be something maybe that you all might be receptive to
doing and discussing at a time frame like that? Cause I think there are two or three that you’ve
got, whether it’s here or not here that we need to spend some time on, and we don’t need to
spend the time and doing 40 other things at the same time. And of getting those done. So I just
wanted to.
Mr. Williams: I can agree with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, then, that’s in that motion and in that second. Fred, did
you need to [inaudible] before we move away from this?
Mr. Russell: Yeah, if you don’t mind. I think I agree fully with what everybody is
saying. This is a problem that seems to be multiplying itself regularly and I don’t think the state
has done us a whole lot of good in their attempt to do that. My concern is not so much for the
bills that are outstanding now, because I feel that the indigent defense subcommittee has been
working on those, and I don’t have a seat at that table, but there are other people and other
county administrator people that do. Burke County has a representative, as does Columbia
County. Would like to share with you that that money is partially reimbursed as part of the
Circuit, and the other two counties actually reimburse about 37% of that. So that’s part of the
deal that they end up paying back into that. My concern is that not only is getting us through this
year going to be expensive, but I think it’s well worth the time that we talk about next year’s
budget, too, at the same time, because of the state’s offering to pay only a small portion of
what’s going to be necessary at the rate that they’re doing it, so we combine the discussion on
how to get to the end of this year with that, as part of – and then part of that be our budget area
and indigent defense for next year. Because I’m faced with the same kind of situation again
where there is a big request out there, a lot of funding required, and not a whole lot of dollars to
66
go. So if we’re going to sit down and talk about indigent defense, I don’t want to limit it to
what’s going to happen to get us to the end of this year, but how we can afford to deal with it
next year, too, and if I could ask you to consider that I’d greatly appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that’s a great observance, Mr. Administrator. I think there
is concern growing across the state that it’s going to have to end up getting expressed in a serious
way, too. And I don’t want to put this one, this monkey on the back of our local Legislative
Delegation alone. I said there are many delegations. I think the leadership right now that’s
coming out of the Legislature has got to realize, and there are cries coming from small counties
as well as metropolitan areas, that you are not going to be able to totally – and this deals not only
with indigent defense, but housing, incarceration, types of sentencing, classes of it, and it’s
before them, it’s going to be before them, and if not within [inaudible] they are going to have
indigent counties replacing indigent folk to a point that if some procedures are not changed and
dealt with, procedures to lock up everybody, throw away the key, when you’ve got folk who are
eventually going to come back in society to a point of dealing with alternative ways that are less
costly, in terms of doing some of these things, and that you’ve still got room to be able to deal
with folk who’ve got to be there for life, you have committed heinous crimes, but to a point
[inaudible] like Commissioner Hankerson was saying, just sitting to a point and in some cases
where people can’t make bond, and I know a lot of that has fallen on our sheriff locally. We’ve
had good cooperation there to a point of where a lot of those people have been actually
[inaudible] but it’s got to be a seriousness in the system as to what this is doing in putting on 159
counties throughout this state and how we are having to react to it, that to a point if we’re going
to end up – I mean you’ve got people across the state that the main thing they’re dealing with is
SPLOST. At least we’ve got some other things that we can argue and debate over. There are
some people who are basically dealing with referendums that just deal with a jail. And that’s just
not good. To a point that if you’re going to kind of throw all the good money you’ve got in here
with bad folk, somewhere in there we’ve got to spend some good money on good folk. So I
think we’ve got to have some serious addresses with that and I’d again urge my colleagues to
talk to their other colleagues because this is a seriousness that is going to have to hit Atlanta
sooner than later. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the
same. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Since the attorney is going to have to be with us until about
midnight, let’s skip over his item on 36A. He’s going to be around. If we can go, we did 38 as
part of the consent, if we can go to 37.
The Clerk: Okay, just a moment, let me record the vote.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure, I’m sorry.
Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
67
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If the chair might ask for 15 seconds of personal privilege to get
you to change something I usually don’t do, but in the process of trying to get us through that
consent agenda and I wouldn’t dare ask for a motion of reconsideration, that’s not where I’m
going, but I do need to change a vote to correspond with what I did in committee, if there be no
objections to it. It would not change the outcome of what the decision was, cause it was on
consent, but I need to let the record reflect that on item number 25 that was on consent which
was passed –
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: - that I voted no.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On that particular item, number 24.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And for the record to show that.
The Clerk: We are deferring item 36A, the attorney’s item?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can go to 37.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
37. Discuss Memorandum Of Understanding Agreement (MOU) for the Sports Arena.
(Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: In the absence of Mr. Grantham, I’d like to make a motion that we
defer item 37 until we could have a special called meeting on September 30, which is the
Thursday after we get back from Atlanta.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
68
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second to refer 37 to a special called
meeting for that Thursday after our ACCG trip. Motion and a second. Is there discussion on the
motion?
Mr. Boyles: May I say, I just think there are some detailed things that we really need to
spend some time on, and without Mr. Grantham here, it would be in my best interest to wait until
then.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to recognize you in just a second, Mr. Simon. Let me
get through the Commissioners here, if they had a question in reference to this motion for just a
moment. Down here, on this end? I usually can – my left ear [inaudible] my left ear was going
that way.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I had a question on the MOU I wanted to ask, or are we going to
wait? I wanted to ask something so I’d be clear on it [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, there I think there are some questions that probably, and
particularly if they are pertaining to the legal side of what we may ask of our own legal
representative that we need to do that. I think this allowed that time to be done. Also, it allows
us adequate time to deal with this when there are not other things there to be present in terms of
doing it. Hopefully, everybody will be here at that time in order to discuss it. What I was going
to suggest is that we can make this an item that goes [inaudible] I guess the question I want to
ask, are we going to discuss – and I mentioned a few minutes ago the possibilities of – and that
was why I said indigent defense going at the end of the special called meeting date, but are we
going to discuss all memoranda on that day or are we going to discuss this memorandum in
reference to that? I mean that’s –
Mr. Cheek: Do them all.
Mr. Boyles: Do them all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I mean – and just for clarification so we would know and a point of
forming of agenda. And that doesn’t have to be done tonight or tomorrow, but just where I’d
have a clear understanding of where we were going with that in terms of the time frame to set it
and to ask other questions that’s in there. Commissioner Williams and then Mr. Simon?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. When I saw it was in the book, I didn’t
know we was even discussing a memorandum right now. But when I saw this in the book and I
only saw this one and that concerned me, I don’t know, maybe there was a meeting I missed and
Commission or committee made a decision to go ahead. But I hadn’t seen any or heard any
dialog on pursuing a, a, a memorandum. I thought we had everything lined up as far as the, the
voters to make a decision as to whether or not we going, going even build something, whether it
be this facility or any other facility. But I was really shocked to see this because like I said, I
don’t remember, I slip sometimes but not, not too often, but I don’t remember a conversation
about we need to go ahead and proceed with that. I think we’ve kind of getting the age-old story
69
going again. You know, somebody asked which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, this
another similar situation here. What do you do first? I mean the voters have not spoke, we got it
on the ballot, it’s going to be voted on and it’s going to be up to them to decide. But then why
are we doing just one if we decide to do that? Now Madame Clerk, if I missed a meeting, if
there was something that took place and I should have been here and I wasn’t, you know, I
would like to be refreshed on that because I don’t, I try hard not to miss much. I try to stay on
this game as much as I can. So did I miss a meeting, was there something that was done or was
the attorney directed to do something? Because if he, this other item we are going to discuss
here, too, is going to affect this item here, item number 36 is going, going come into place here
in a little bit. But is that was something I missed, I guess that’s my question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me, let me say this, and, and I think the Clerk can speak
for herself, but I don’t think you missed a meeting, Commissioner. What this was done under
the same right and rule that any Commissioner or Commissioners have the right to do in terms of
placing an item on the Commission’s agenda, and I think – and I can’t speak for my colleague,
Super District colleague. At the time we talked about this into the a.m. hours was the last time
that we basically dealt with any memorandums and anything that went on sales tax. And it was
kind of agreed that obviously we would get back to talking. And I think what he did was in
terms of placing something on the agenda where it could generate talks again in terms of dealing
with it. Now he may have a different opinion on it, but I think that’s where it was. It was not
something where a meeting was discussed and this was directed to go that way. It was done
where any Commissioner, it could have been me, you, Bobby, Ms. Sims, Ms. Beard, anybody.
Mr. Williams: I understand Commissioner Mays, and I guess my point, I mean the, the,
the first level, the first, first education of a Commissioner being you had a right to place on the
agenda. And I got a call from the attorney that, about a meeting that I wasn’t able to make to, to
talk about some of these issues here, and I was a little concerned then. But to place an item on to
discuss is one thing. But to place an item on to get a vote on or to make an agreement on is
something else. Now all of us can place something on, and I got no problem with it being placed
on. But to, to, to, to get an agreement, I think that was, I think maybe the Clerk made a mistake,
maybe she worded it wrong, maybe she should have had item to discuss rather than to have
agreement down there. Maybe that could happen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It says to discuss, and I go over the items with the Clerk, whether
the Mayor is in town or out of town. I’m going to come in, or if necessary, worst case scenario, I
will get faxed out those items or hand carried on a Thursday morning to see where we are, to see
just from the standpoint of double and triple checking to see if there is anything that we may
have a difference on. And it’s a memorandum of understanding agreement, but it does say to
discuss, and I think that’s as far as it basically takes it. There’s be no misleading. The rules are
in place as they are. It can be placed on by one Commissioner or ten Commissioners. But that’s
all that it is and it’s a discussion. What I think we’re trying to move from now so that if we want
to dedicate proper time, and I don’t think we, have objections per se – something is going to have
to be talked about at some point in time. What I think we were trying to do is move to a time
that this memorandum, the other memorandum and an item dealing with us going into reserve
money of a serious nature, and I consider it serious to a point when it, when it, when it’s there
70
almost equaling what we got left in the city’s contingency. And that has nothing to do with the
memoranda, but that’s why I said I thought those two or three items maybe need to be placed in a
time frame where they could be dealt with by themselves. But no, you are on top of it. You
didn’t miss any meeting. At the same time, the office of the Clerk handled it in the proper way.
It was put on and one Commissioner could request the discussion and it did not need to, it didn’t
have to be approved by anybody else. Any other Commissioner? I’m sorry, Commissioners?
Mr. Simon, go ahead.
Mr. Simon: My recollection of the MOU has been that at [inaudible] meetings here, each
of you were asked if you had comments or changes in MOU’s that have been passed out, that
you were to contact the county attorney. And some of you have and we’ve been working with
them. And so that’s, that’s my recollection of what’s transpired so far. Of course, it’s our intent
and intention to you to get you to pass a vote on a MOU so that we then can help you get the
sales tax passed, get SPLOST passed. I don’t think if the SPLOST vote was held today that it
would pass. But we want to get out there and work with you and – cause I think all of you want
the SPLOST to pass, and that’s what we want to do, is work with you and spend some money
with our marketing folks to help see that that is done, that’s it is passed so we can move forward
with some of these projects. So next Thursday, is that what we’re talking about, Mr. Mays, a
meeting for next Thursday?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Simon: Okay, what time would that be? 2:00 o’clock?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: At this point, since we’ve got adequate time to place it, hopefully
within the next 48 hours that we can set a time.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let us do that, because of the different parties that we need to get
on board to do. I do think we’ll deal with the memorandums at the top. It may be the indigent
defense situation that rounds out what’s there, and if there be something else that’s there, we may
need to do that. But I think those three that are out there right now, and the reason why I’d like
to say leave the 48 hours, the Mayor is working on the brownfields situation, he’s there in St.
Louis right now, it may be a particular item, and particularly with a called meeting, that he may
want to add to that agenda, I’d like to give him that opportunity once he knows what we’ve done
today, to be able to possibly add that at that time and that way we’d have adequate timing to
notify everybody and especially since it’s over a week. And to be able to get those particular
parties lined up.
Mr. Simon: But I would encourage any of you who have questions or comments or
would like to discuss this further with us, we’d be happy to sit down with you. We’ve tried to do
that and we’ll be happy to do that at any time. But I would like to ask that all of you, if you
could, be here next Thursday so we can discuss it in detail, because as I told you last December,
we would like to have ten votes to support this, because it’s a big project in the community. We
71
think we’ve got the right team, we think we’ve got right answers for it, and we think we can
make it happen. But we need your support, as well. As I said a moment ago, I believe that we
all working together can turn this sales tax, even the Mayor, I hope, around about supporting
SPLOST. Because it’s going to take everybody behind it to support it. Because I think there is a
lot of misinformation out there about SPLOST and I’ve got some ideas I’d like to share with you
next week that would address some of those issue. But it’s misinformation that’s there and I
think we can correct that and turn it around.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Hopefully there is a meeting and if we going to talk about MOU’s, I hope
they all are brought to the table at the same time. I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m very leery about doing just
one. I thought that we was going to get first things first. But if that’s the case, if that’s what we
going do, we need to bring everybody to the table, we need to have probably a day just to talk
about this because there is a lot of issues that going to have to be discussed on both sides. I’m
sure Mr. Simon has got some good ideas and I’m sure that he’s got some way of supporting this
sales tax. But the voters is going to be the deciding factor and that’s what we ought to be
[inaudible] our minds on now. Even the time, we have not sat down and made out a schedule as
to what’s, who’s on first and what’s on second. Those kind of things have to be talked about, as
well. So it’s a lot to be talked about. So if we going to start talking, I don’t have no problem,
but let’s put everything on the table and let’s talk about it all when we talk about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think you’re absolutely correct. That is why I said even a minute
ago that in terms of setting a time, per se, I wanted to make sure that items that are going to be
discussed, that we’ve got an adequate time frame for them, and frankly to keep it on a neutral
basis, discussion is just that. Discussion is discussion. Discussion can lead to a vote, discussion
can lead to more discussion. You know, it just depends on how the discussion goes. And that’s
what I think we keep in mind in terms of doing it, but I think that was the purpose of wanting to
be able to lay things out. I would encourage persons for parts of discussion to do two things that
are on the Commission. And this is a part that I agree with Mr. Simon on, and I’ve tried to be – I
think the memorandum that’s been out there, it’s stated where Augusta Entertainment stands, I
have had questions that I have raised, not just in SPLOST meetings. I’ve had questions that I’ve
raised for the last year-and-a-half, and I’ve been up front and very forward with those questions.
I’m going to continue to raise the same questions. Now I also have some questions of the city’s
attorney that I’m not to telegraph any [inaudible]. Y’all know how I am in negotiations. That’s
not going to be said. Some of that’s going to be to a point of where I have some very pointed
things to ask our legal representatives, how we stand. And this is not just with this particular
item, this is with other things on the sales tax and with the other project that has a memorandum
that’s there. Both of them to a point of where we go with it. But what I would encourage, I
would encourage that if people cannot make that particular meeting, to at least put in writing if
it’s a question or comment that needs to be posed, whether it’s Augusta Entertainment, whether
it’s the people with the amphitheater. In that vein, to make it known, and to have it there at that
particular meeting. And it’s very easy for a person to comment for someone who may not be
72
there at that particular time. But I think that at least gets the discussion process started in terms
of where you’re going. That would be my suggestion with it. I’m sorry, I left out Commissioner
Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. One of my questions was, and I think I had asked before,
make sure that everyone has a revised copy of the memorandum of understanding, the last one,
between now and the time. One of the things that – I asked for one since I saw it on the agenda
and one was delivered to me. On that board, ten member board, we was concerned, there was
concerns about the ten member board of how many Commissioners and how many individuals, I
think the change has been made to four Commissioners on the board, Mayor and three
Commissioners. Is that correct?
Mr. Simon: That’s correct. It’s 11 members to the board.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. Will you give the name of the four appointee, the ones that –
before it was three community person. Will you give the name of the four people now that we
would have a choice to select three of the four that you are, that you presented to us? First time
it was three, I think.
Mr. Simon: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: You added to four people?
Mr. Simon: We’re talking about – you want name now? We’re talking about Terry
Elam. We haven’t asked him yet, but that’s who we’re talking about.
Mr. Hankerson: And who are the other three?
Mr. Simon: The other three is –
Mr. Hankerson: Otis Moss, Terry Elam –
Mr. Simon: Otis Moss, James Kendrick, who is here this afternoon.
Mr. Hankerson: James Kendrick.
Mr. Simon: And Larry Sconyers.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Simon: And then you have four Commissioners and then we’ve got four from
Augusta Entertainment. That gives you an 11-man board. And then we’ve also put in there that
would keep us from changing the board without giving you equal representation.
Mr. Hankerson: Ten-member board, isn’t it?
73
Mr. Simon: Be 11. Be four, four, that’s eight. And three. 11. Four from the
Commissioners, four from Augusta Entertainment, that’s eight. And then you are going to select
three out of four. Would make it 11. You should have an odd man board. I think that works
better.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think if we going, if we going discuss it, we can – that get
your question answered, Mr. Hankerson? I think we going to have to end up –
Mr. Simon: I think we should wait and let everybody be here and discuss it, but I’ll be
glad to answer any questions you’ve got if you want to.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: And we’ll be prepared to distribute both MOU’s we have.
Mr. Colclough: Please, prior to Thursday.
Mr. Shepard: We’re going to do it this evening.
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second out there, and before I lose –
Mr. Williams: What’s the motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That we would go to – that the item would be, would be postponed
until Thursday’s called meeting. That also gives us an opportunity – that’s a reason why I didn’t
want to set a time tonight – gives us an opportunity to give the Clerk proper timing to set an
agenda for the Thursday morning.
The Clerk: [inaudible] arena and amphitheater.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Arena and amphitheater. And what I said was at the time we may
need to entertain possibly dealing with indigent defense. It may on that, the bottom of that, or
not, and then I wanted to leave space from the standpoint that since the Mayor was not here, that
if he wanted to participate in that discussion, or there may be an emergency item that he has to
bring back or just have or that may come up out of Mr. Russell’s office. It gives you an
opportunity in notification time, rather than us setting in stone nine days ahead of time what’s
going to be on an agenda. I just think that works to the Clerk’s office’s disadvantage to do that
when we got the time to be able to do it. We’re not going to back up on people to have to come
in, to say get a notice, this is what’s going to happen. We’ll have plenty of time to deal with that
74
but I wanted to at least get some time so that from a staffing standpoint you can adequately
prepare and get the agenda set, because called meetings are very [inaudible]. I believe Mr.
Shepard would agree in that nature of what can be on there, and once you get it set it’s very
limited and you dealing with something that that’s important, you don’t want to, you know, do it
too early and then you restrict yourself from being able to do something else. Commissioner
Beard?
Ms. Beard: I was just saying with these, the memorandum of understanding, I can
imagine the citizens will have a chance to review them before the vote and [inaudible] what I
have seen is a question on the number of years. But I have spoken with David Persaud and he
seems to feel it’s manageable and I’m also reminded of the fact that we went to what,
Jacksonville, and they went out 30 years, and in doing so they are able to do a number of these
projects. So with that, and the fact that the citizens are going to vote on this, they will be able to
review everything and know what they would like to do, then I think it is time to kind of come
together and push to get this.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: We lost a quorum.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t have a quorum. I need y’all to give me some direction on
how we’re going to deal with 37 – I mean not 37, but 36 and 39. I’ve got to have y’all to be able
to tell me that. [inaudible] but you’re going to have to tell me something. 36A is on board. And
I know everybody needs a recess but we [inaudible] and it ain’t got dark outside. I need to keep
you, Reverend, you need to [inaudible]. I can let everybody out of here at the given time.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Boyles: It’s my understanding that when Mr. Grantham left, he said he’d be back in
about 30 minutes. He had to go do something and if we take a recess, he may be back. So. Or I
could try to call him.
Mr. Williams: You’re going to lose one of them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The problem is Mr. Grantham already went to take care of his
business, but I got some Commissioners down here going to leave that outnumber him. Now
you may get him back, but I’m going to lose these down here. I got seven in the room. Now we
got legal matters, and if you need to discuss them, you can discuss them, cause really, once you
75
leave, I’ll be honest with you, I’m not staying all not to reconvene to get a quorum. I’m going to
be like y’all now. The last time I did that I stayed here till about 1:27 to be a.m. on another day.
So now we need to – yeah, the first one that left them [inaudible] to [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] go.
Mr. Boyles: Sounds like the devil’s after him.
Mr. Hankerson: At 7:00 o’clock I’m out the door.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we’ve lost a quorum. That basically ends what we’re doing.
The chair is going to declare a recess. We cannot take a motion without a quorum, even to
adjourn. I’m going to declare a recess. If it doesn’t come back within that ten minute given
period, then we’ll consider ourselves dismissed, and we cannot have it. I hope Mr. Grantham
returns, then I got to let Commissioner Hankerson go at that time.
[MEETING ENDS DUE TO LOSS OF A QUORUM]
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
September 21, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
76