HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-19-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 19, 2004
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday,
October 19, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Sims, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Boyles, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Call the meeting to order. I’ve asked the Rev. James Hogan, who is
pastor of the New Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church, to come forward with the
invocation. Rev. Hogan, if you’ll come to the podium. And then after the invocation, if
everyone would please remain standing, I’m going to ask the Rev. Bobby Hankerson to
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Please rise.
The Invocation was given by Rev. James Hogan.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and the members of the Commission, we’d
like to thank you and give you this token of appreciation for coming in and being our
spiritual leader today. Thank you.
Rev. Hogan: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move along with the resolution of condolence,
please.
The Clerk:
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE:
Honorable Henry H. Brigham, Sr., former Commissioner
Richmond County Board of Commission (1985-1995)
Augusta Commission (1996-2001)
The Clerk: Whereas, Henry H. Brigham, Sr., affectionately known by many as
Mr. Henry for his quiet and gentle spirit was born December 9, 1928 in Girard, Georgia;
and
1
Whereas, Henry Brigham worked in the Richmond County School System for 33
years as a teacher, counselor, principal and director of Emergency School Aid Act at C.T.
Walker, Sand Bar Ferry, Telfair and Terrace Manor Elementary Schools and A.R.
Johnson Junior High School. He was the founder and the director of Project Success, a
program to assist at-risk youth with mentor programs and after-school tutoring; and
Whereas, Henry Brigham served on the Richmond County Board of Commission
from 1985 to 1995 where he served as Chairman in 1992, and the Augusta Commission
from 1996 to 2001, where he served as Chairman of the Administrative Services
Committee and Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee; and
Whereas, Henry Brigham was a member of several civic organizations in the Mt.
Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church where he served as a church Trustee and
President of the H.H. Brigham Gospel Choir for 50 years. He received numerous
humanitarian awards, honors and awards for his tireless work to improve living
conditions for all citizens of Augusta; and
Whereas, Henry Brigham’s soft-spoken, hard-working ways will be sorely missed
by all of us who knew him and loved him; and
Whereas, the members of the Augusta Commission were deeply saddened to learn
of his passing;
Whereas, Henry Brigham spent the majority of his life as a public servant,
statesman, and churchman, serving the people of Augusta, the state of Georgia, and our
country; and
Whereas, the family, friends, constituents and colleagues of Henry Brigham, who
some called “The Quiet Storm” targeted his passion to helping senior citizens and
children, which was exemplified through his leadership, may always remember and
never, ever forget his love, concern and dedication for each of them, as he shall forever
live in their hearts; and
Therefore, be it resolved, that it is with our sincere care and concern that we, the
Augusta Commission of Richmond County, Georgia, send these humble words
expressing our heartfelt sympathy. May you find comfort in knowing that others care
and share your loss. It be further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to
th
the family and friends of former Commissioner Henry H. Brigham, this 19 day of
October, in the Year of our Lord 2004.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to adopt the resolution?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
2
Mr. Mayor: The rest of our recognitions.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we would like to
acknowledge and to recognize Augusta Information Technology Department.
RECOGNITIONS:
Augusta Information Technology Department
Mr. Michael Culver, Web Administrator
Award of Excellence for the Augusta Website from the City-County
Communications and Marketing Association.
The Clerk: Mr. Michael Culver, in particular, and the IT Department in general.
Ms. Allen, would you please come forward with Mr. Culver, members of his family, IT?
Mr. Mayor, are you going to present this?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I will.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the City of Augusta
received a national award and was recognized for its website on Thursday, September 2,
by the City-County Communication and Marketing Association. The city received an
award of excellence in the National Savvy Award competition in the category of
technology services for cities and counties with a population of 130,000-225,000. Up to
four finalists are named in each population division. Formed in 1988, the CCCMA is an
international association of more than 800 professional communicators working on behalf
of city and county agencies and related organizations. The Savvy Awards program was
started in 1989 as a way to recognize outstanding communication efforts by cities and
counties. This year’s award program drew 691 entries in a range of video, print and
marketing categories. The Savvy award was presented during the annual conference held
in September. Congratulations, IT.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Allen: I would like to take this time to tell Michael Culver how much I
appreciate the hard work and dedication he has put in to our website. When Michael
Culver came on board with the Information Technology Department in 2002, his major
goal was to change the way we provided information to our citizens. And one way to do
that was to improve our change our website, which he invented a brand new website in
2003. I’d like for you to know that in 2002 we had roughly 200,000 visits to our website.
After the new website was released in 2003, we doubled that number. 500,000-
something visits to the website. And thus far in 2004, we’ve already exceeded that and
made 803,000 visits to our website. So thank you, Mike. I’m truly grateful to have you
as part of the Information Technology team. I would also like to acknowledge the rest of
the Information Technology team standing and sitting in the back who have come here to
support Mike in this endeavor. Thank you again, Mike.
(A round of applause is given.)
3
The Clerk:
SEPTEMBER’S EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
Ms. Julie Orwen, Administrative Assistant
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field
The Clerk: Would you please come forward and join the Mayor, along with
aviation staff members, Mr. Cedric Johnson, chairman, Mr. Buster Boshears, executive
director, Ms. Tammy Strange, finance director? Mr. Mayor and members of the
Commission, the Employees Recognition Committee has selected Ms. Julie Orwen as the
September, 2004 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. She is an
administrative assistant at the Augusta Regional Airport. Julie was nominated by the
department director, Willis Boshears. Julie has worked for the City of Augusta for 4-1/2
years. Mr. Boshears states in his nomination, “after her determination in getting the job
done, no matter how difficult or complicated, she always maintains her composure and
performs her duties in a professional manner. Her exemplary service has not gone
unnoticed by her coworkers who have awarded her the aviation bear of the week several
times. She is highly embraced by all of her coworkers because she always has the time to
help them, no matter what the task. When asked to comment on her nomination, this is
what they had to say. Julie is the rock of the airport administration staff. Everyone goes
to the gal. Julie is the backbone of our department. Julie sets an example for all of us to
aspire to.” The committee felt that based on Mr. Boshears’ recommendation and Ms.
Orwen’s outstanding performance, she should be awarded the Employee of the Month.
We appreciate you in joining us in awarding Julie Employee of the Month for September,
2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Orwen: I would just like to thank Mr. Boshears for nominating me and thank
the committee. I was a little flabbergasted by it. I was in awe. I would like to say that
the airport is a very close knit family. We all work very well together, we work very
hard. I couldn’t possibly be here without them. Everything that they do is just
wonderful. We have a lot of professional people out there. We try the best that we can
and I’ve learned that the county as a whole works very well together and it’s good to be
part of the county. It’s a good feeling and it’s good to know that everybody at the county
cares about everybody. And I just want to say thank you to everybody.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next is delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
A. Mr. Brian Green
4
RE: Discuss flood threat
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Green, welcome. You have five minutes under the rules of the
Commission. Mr. Russell, keep the time for us, please.
Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for my five minutes, the Commission,
citizens. Just once again, appreciate the opportunity to appear before you ladies and
gentlemen of the Commission. I’m here about a concern that I have about the flood
threat in this community. I think it’s a legitimate threat and I think that maybe it’s high
time that we consider the possibility of a feasibility study into this matter. I know we
have taken certain steps, I know there has been some drainage improvements over a
period of time, even with the improvements at Raes Creek area. But I’m just almost
amazed when I drive around the city how much standing water there is, like even on
Belair Road, just different places around the community, even roads at a slight angle.
And I just think these are all warming signs to us to plan ahead. I’m under the
impression that we can have maybe a state-of-the-art facility here in Augusta to be used
for natural disasters, people being burned out of their homes. Of course, if none of those
things are prevalent at the time, we can use it for other issues, other things as well, such
as homeless families, homeless children, things like that, even a processing center, as I
have spoken with the former Mayor of the city some years ago. That is the bulk of what
I present to you today. I know that times are rough and I know that the budget is tight
and I know someone will always ask the question where’s this money coming from,
where can we get this money to build such a facility? But before I answer that question, I
just would like to say that we can get it probably from some of the same places that we
suggest other major projects in the city, such as entertainment, arts, things like that. And
yes, I know you need a diversity to make a city flourish and you need to have a well-
rounded city. I do understand that. I just think that this flood issue is the one issue that
we can all possibly agree upon, both sides or all sides, and that we can take some positive
steps to maybe develop a state-of-the art facility here. And once again, I’d just like to
request this Commission consider doing a feasibility study on this matter. I thank you
very much, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone have any questions? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may the record reflect that consistent with what Brian is
brining to the table, Augusta passed three years ago the most restrictive flood
construction ordinance for residential construction and flood prone areas in the state.
Also, we have included on this current round of SPLOST issues that have been put off for
30 years and drainage problems, including dredging Butler Creek, Lake Olmstead. There
is also a flood control feasibility study being conducted in conjunction with the Corps of
Engineers for Raes Creek, Rock Creek and Rocky Creek. We are trying to think ahead
and we are trying to work through this, and as you said, there’s only so much money to
go around, and this is why this Commissioner fought very hard to make sure that
infrastructure was first priority in the current round of the sales tax and its initiative. But
thank you for bringing that in, and I just wanted to let you know that we are trying to
5
think ahead and we have taken steps. We didn’t get here overnight. It’s just going to
take us a little time to work though it, but we are working in that direction, Brian.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, next delegation?
The Clerk:
B. Mr. Robert Winnderlich
RE: Concerns and questions relative to Richmond County’s judicial process.
The Clerk: Mr. Winnderlich has left at your places his statement. Mr.
Winnderlich?
Mr. Mayor: Robert, welcome, you have five minutes under the rules of the
Commission.
Mr. Winnderlich: Thank you, my honorable Commissioners and honorable
Mayor Bob Young for allowing me to speak before you today. For 4-1/2 years I have
been punished for a crime I did not commit and I [inaudible] prove it in the honorable
Court. My innocence has been proven twice in the Superior Court. I am being forced to
pay a fine and probation fee. I nickname it Mafia Protection. The Sheriff’s Department
did not give me my Miranda warning, not following procedures, no equal protection
under the law. The DA in the court indicted me with no proof, no evidence, using lies
and hearsay, using the Mayor’s name, Bob Young, to indict me, without his knowledge
or permission. They forced me and my mother out of our two homes without due process
of law and the property was my bond. Closed door trial. Biased judge. Tainted jury.
And one juror was the foreperson, sat on three juries in seven months. My evidence was
suppressed, all of my witnesses was suppressed, including one witness who could have
proved my innocence at the trial, was suppressed. They forced Georgia Regional to
violate their rules and procedures by taking me in when I was convicted. They also
forced a mental evaluation, Georgia Regional gave me an illness I do not have and
medication I do not need. I had a severe reaction. Later, Judge Pickett ordered me back
to Georgia Regional and I saw Dr. [inaudible]. He refused to give me the medication.
He said you never had the illness and should have never been given this illness, I mean
this medication. This is drug abuse and it abuses your taxpayers. 99-RCCR-561 should
be investigated for abuse of power, judicial misconduct, and violating the people’s trust.
Also violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil rights by not giving me my fair trial
guaranteed under the constitution. Falsifying transcripts. Threatening lawyers. I did not
– I did see another doctor for a second opinion so I knew I did not have this illness.
Superior Court Judge and the DA disregarded the recommendation and a court order
from [inaudible] the honorable Judge Barfield and the honorable Judge Bowen. The
elected officials have gotten letters from my mother requesting an investigation in this
case, all the way to the Governor all the way down to you honorable Commissioners and
the Mayor. I am asking you today please help me. I can prove my case. Give me to the
appellate court or get this case heard by investigation, by the FBI, the GBI or the U.S.
6
Attorney’s office. I have evidence. I can prove I never did this, I was fighting drug
dealers. And the Sheriff’s Department was protecting them. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Robert, for bringing this to our attention. Anything
further?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Mayor: Would the gentleman with this type of complaint, would we give any
kind of directions of who this should be filed before, if it’s not proper to come before the
Commission, can we, as he leave today, for him to know that should be filed somewhere
else? I think some kind of direction should be given.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, I don’t know if that expertise is up here at the panel,
and our attorney is not in the room.
The Clerk: Yes, he is.
Mr. Mayor: There he is.
Mr. Hankerson: As the attorney. I wouldn’t like for him to just come and think
we turned a deaf ear to him, to let him know where he need to file his complaint, because
I don’t think we – this is the proper place I don’t think. You’re the attorney, so will you
speak to him?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll speak to him, sir, and receive his information and [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Winnderlich: May I say one thing else? Your constituents in this county and
this state deserve better in your courts, and by allowing this to continue, they’re not
getting the fair justice that is guaranteed them under the Constitution and the rule of law.
And as far as not having jurisdiction in this matter, you do control the purse strings and
the wallet of the Sheriff’s office, the DA’s office, and the Court. I think it’s upon them to
show themselves not trying to pull the wool over the citizens’ eyes. Let’s have an
investigation and let’s open the doors of this courthouse to the people.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I think Mr. Shepard is going to meet with you, Robert.
Mr. Winnderlich: Thank you, Mayor, thank you, everybody.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell has the staff of our Finance Department in here for the
presentation of the budget, which he advises me would just take a matter of a few
minutes. He’s not going to present it as it’s been presented in the past, with lengthy
recitation. So what I’d like to do is move ahead to the presentation of the budget so our
Finance staff can go back to work in the Finance Department and then we can move
along with our agenda. So if you’ll call item 52, Madame Clerk, we’ll do that.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
52. Presentation of proposed Augusta, Ga. FY 2005 Budget.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, first I’d like to
recognize the – Mr. Persaud and the Finance staff. They’ve worked hard on this the last
several months, actually. As you know, this is a process that takes a right lengthy period
of time and requires a whole lot of hard work and dedication. Mr. Persaud and the staff
have done just that and have had the budget ready for a couple of weeks now and I’m
very proud of what they’ve been able to put together. The process itself is just actually
beginning. Tomorrow we have a called meeting of the Finance Committee at which time
we will be going over the next several weeks and how we want to go through the budget
itself. The documents that you should be receiving shortly are two-fold. Last year you
asked for a line item budget, we did not provide them. This year you have line item
budgets being provided to you. In addition to that, the smaller document is a summary of
the expenses, the revenue, and our recommendations for the budget for 2005. As we all
know, this recommendation is just a catalyst to begin a discussion, a discussion that will
take place over the next several weeks in which you as policymakers will have to make
numerous hard decisions on how to allocate some very, very tight tax dollars that are
available to us. As we started the budget process, Mr. Persaud had a $9 million hole to
fill in the general fund budget and has worked real hard to do that. Based on his
recommendation and based on the way we looked at the budget this year, we did not look
at adding any money for growth in the digest. Last year we had done that and found out
we were short and that was money we had to make up, so we did not do that. We
budgeted flat. Therefore, to make up the additional $9 million, which has come about
through increased costs, through increased money for indigent defense, increased medical
fees for jail prisoners and those kinds of things that are beyond our control, we had three
choices, or actually four choices, the first of which was to raise taxes to cover that. The
second was to cut expenditures and services. The third was to go into the fund balance
for the $9 million. And the fourth was to use a combination of all three of those. And
that’s what the Finance staff, with Mr. Persaud’s direction, that I’m recommending that
we do. We’ve put down budget cuts of $820,000, expenditure reductions of $2.7
million, the proposed millage increase of 1.5 mills, which is approximately a $4.40
charge a month on a $100,000 home, and then appropriate half a million dollars from the
fund balance to cover the difference in that. None of these are easy decisions to make,
none of these are easy recommendations to give you. We have tried to take away from
8
areas that we thought we could afford to do that and not harm anybody. Obviously, when
you start taking away, there is harm involved. When you start talking about increasing
taxes, there is harm involved. What we had to do is face a very, very difficult decision on
how to balance this budget. We are looking forward to the dialogue over the next several
weeks as we continue to look at that. The options that are available to you are slim, but
they’re there and we’ll work with you as you [inaudible] use of the taxpayers’ dollars.
It’s our goal to make sure that once these dollars are allocated the taxpayers get a full
dollar’s worth of service for every dollar that is spent, and that is the direction I’ve
received from you and that’s the direction I assume I will continue to receive from you.
We’re frugal in our expenses, we’re cautious in our expenses, but unfortunately the cost
of doing business continues to rise, and if we continue to do business we need to keep up
with that. Tomorrow at one o’clock is a called Finance Committee meeting. There will
be a more detailed explanation of the budget at that particular point in time [inaudible]
Mr. Persaud, and those documents will be passed out to you after the meeting today, or
we can do it now based on your pleasure. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor:I guess we would probably
Any questions for Mr. Russell?
entertain a motion to receive this information of the budget presentation.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion on the motion? All in favor then
vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, you want us to go on and pass these out to you?
Mr. Mayor: Might as well. There may be some people that have to leave early
today, so make sure everyone gets the document.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead now to the consent agenda and see
what we can dispose of off of that and then we’ll move on to a couple of items we have
delegations here for.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 39. that’s items
1 through 39.
For the benefit of any objectors to any of our planning or alcohol
petitions, once those petitions are read, if you have any objection, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand? That will be for our planning items, as well
as our alcohol petitions.
PLANNING:
9
1. Z-04-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that no development except
underground utilities may be located in the floodplain; a petition by Randy
Watkins, III, on behalf of David Dunn, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) with conditions to Zone R-1D (Onefamily Residential)
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a
distance of 302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s
Creek intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road and
contains approximately 14.6 acres. (Tax Map 18 Parcel 59) DISTRICT 7
2. Z-04-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only access be from
Jimmie Dyess Parkway; a petition by Friendly Church of God in Christ requesting
a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities, per Section 26-1
(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property recently addressed as 3050 Jimmie Dyess Parkway and
containing approximately 26 acres. (Tax Map 66 Parcel 61) DISTRICT 3
3. Z-04-85 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the area to be granted
the Special Exception be reduced to 0.5 acre at the northwest corner of the property as
shown on a diagram in the file and 2) that the subject area be surrounded by a 6 foot
solid fence; a petition by Thomas E. Bradford requesting a Special Exception to
reestablish a former salvage yard in an HI (Heavy Industry) Zone, per Section 24-2
(16) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 3825 Peach Orchard Road and containing
approximately 2.61 acres. (Tax Map 180 Parcel 14.01) DISTRICT 6
4. Z-04-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the petitioner must receive
design approval from the Historic Preservation Commission and obtain a Board of
Zoning Appeals variance for the front setback or build within the existing front setback
within one year or the zoning reverts back to R-1 (One-family Residential) a petition
by Michael Shelton requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) on property located at 1010
Monte Sano Avenue and containing .17 acres. (Part of Tax Map 34-3 Parcel 68)
DISTRICT 3
5. Z-04-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph M. Norris requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 2200 Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd. and
containing .40 acres. (Tax Map 72-1 Parcel 141) DISTRICT 2
6. Z-04-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Basic Holdings (AKA Augusta
Neighborhood Improvement Corporation) requesting a change of zone from Zone
R-1C (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1E (one-
family Residential) affecting property located where the northwest right-of-way of
James Brown Boulevard intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Hopkins Street
and containing .36 acres. (Tax Map 46-4 Parcel 463, 464 & 465) DISTRICT 1
10
7. Z-04-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Capers & Associates, on behalf of
Mary E. Rhodes, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from R-1A (One-family
Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3096 Deans Bridge Road
and containing approximately 1.5 acres. (Tax Map 96-2 Parcel 184 & 189)
DISTRICT 6
8. Z-04-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Quitman White, Jr., on behalf of
William Johnson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 4081 Old
Waynesboro Road and containing 1.0 acre. (Tax Map 198 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8
9. Z-04-93 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) there be no access to
Bayvale Road and 2) that there be a 40’ vegetative buffer along the property line
adjacent to the lots that front Bayvale Road; a petition by Gerald Woods, on behalf
of Fore Augusta Foundation, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B
(Multiple-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) with a Special
Exception to allow an auto body operation per Section 22-2 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Bayvale Road, 1,300 feet, more or less, northwest of
Gordon Highway and containing approximately 11 acres. (Tax Map 55 Parcel 6.1)
DISTRICT 5
10. Z-04-94 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) the development be
limited to 7 units and 2) that there be no access to the existing Summerchase
neighborhood; a petition by Michael Melugin, on behalf of Louis P. Gangarosa, Sr.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
1C (One-family Residential) with a Special Exception to allow commonwall
townhomes not to exceed 7 units per acre, per Section 11-2 (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located 245
feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road and
being 1,360 feet, more or less, west of Damascus Road and containing 1.0 acre. (Tax
Map 42-4 Parcel 15) DISTRICT 5
11. Z-04-95 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by R. Steve McNair, on behalf of
Prosperity Jockey Lot, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3228 Wrightsboro Road and containing approximately 1.43 acres. (Tax Map 42-3
Parcel 5.01) DISTRICT 5
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: No objectors are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: For our alcohol petitions:
11
PUBLIC SERVICES:
17. Motion to approve a request by Patricia M. Lee for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Palazzo’s located at
231 Fury’s Ferry Road, Suite 101. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 11, 2004)
18. Motion to approve a request by Donnetta L. Killien for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Donnetta’s
located at 2864 Deans Bridge Road. There will be dance. District 2. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, what is your pleasure with respect to the
consent agenda?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve the consent agenda. It’s been seconded. Would
you like to pull any items? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Item 3, please, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, number 3 for Mr. Cheek. Any others?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir, item 28, please.
Mr. Mayor: Number 28 for Mr. Grantham. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 5, Mr. Mayor. Also I need some clarification on 36 and 38.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, number 5, 36 and 38 for Mr. Williams. Any others? Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I’d like to pull item 10, please.
12
Mr. Mayor: Item number 10 for Mr. Hankerson. Any others?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that no development except
underground utilities may be located in the floodplain; a petition by Randy
Watkins, III, on behalf of David Dunn, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) with conditions to Zone R-1D (Onefamily Residential)
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a
distance of 302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s
Creek intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road and
contains approximately 14.6 acres. (Tax Map 18 Parcel 59) DISTRICT 7
2. Z-04-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only access be from
Jimmie Dyess Parkway; a petition by Friendly Church of God in Christ requesting
a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities, per Section 26-1
(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property recently addressed as 3050 Jimmie Dyess Parkway and
containing approximately 26 acres. (Tax Map 66 Parcel 61) DISTRICT 3
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Z-04-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the petitioner must receive
design approval from the Historic Preservation Commission and obtain a Board of
Zoning Appeals variance for the front setback or build within the existing front setback
within one year or the zoning reverts back to R-1 (One-family Residential) a petition
by Michael Shelton requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) on property located at 1010
Monte Sano Avenue and containing .17 acres. (Part of Tax Map 34-3 Parcel 68)
DISTRICT 3
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Z-04-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Basic Holdings (AKA Augusta
Neighborhood Improvement Corporation) requesting a change of zone from Zone
R-1C (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1E (one-
family Residential) affecting property located where the northwest right-of-way of
James Brown Boulevard intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Hopkins Street
and containing .36 acres. (Tax Map 46-4 Parcel 463, 464 & 465) DISTRICT 1
7. Z-04-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Capers & Associates, on behalf of
Mary E. Rhodes, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from R-1A (One-family
Residential) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3096 Deans Bridge Road
and containing approximately 1.5 acres. (Tax Map 96-2 Parcel 184 & 189)
DISTRICT 6
13
8. Z-04-92 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Quitman White, Jr., on behalf of
William Johnson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 4081 Old
Waynesboro Road and containing 1.0 acre. (Tax Map 198 Parcel 7) DISTRICT 8
9. Z-04-93 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) there be no access to
Bayvale Road and 2) that there be a 40’ vegetative buffer along the property line
adjacent to the lots that front Bayvale Road; a petition by Gerald Woods, on behalf
of Fore Augusta Foundation, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B
(Multiple-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) with a Special
Exception to allow an auto body operation per Section 22-2 of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Bayvale Road, 1,300 feet, more or less, northwest of
Gordon Highway and containing approximately 11 acres. (Tax Map 55 Parcel 6.1)
DISTRICT 5
10. Deleted from the consent agenda.
11. Z-04-95 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by R. Steve McNair, on behalf of
Prosperity Jockey Lot, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3228 Wrightsboro Road and containing approximately 1.43 acres. (Tax Map 42-3
Parcel 5.01) DISTRICT 5
12. FINAL PLAT – BARNETT CROSSING , SECTION 4 – S-613-IV – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Home Sites, LTD.,
requesting final plat approval for Barnett Crossing, Section 4. This residential
subdivision is located on Barnett Crossing, adjacent to Barnett Crossing, Section 2
and contains 55 lots.
13. FINAL PLAT – SANDERLING, PHASE TWO – S-638-II – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Preston Price, requesting final
plat approval for Sanderling Subdivision Phase II. This residential subdivision is
located on Sanderly Drive, adjacent to Sanderling, Section I and contains 26 lots.
14. FINAL PLAT – RIVERWATCH LANE CENTER – S-691 - A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of Cliff Channel, requesting final plat
approval for Riverwatch Lane Center. This commercial subdivision is located off
Riverwatch Parkway and contains 6 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
15. Motion to approve a change order to RCN Contracting, Inc. for $36,880 for
design/build on an additional paved parking area and associated storm drain work.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
14
16. Motion to approve an Ordinance to establish and adjust Augusta Regional
Airport’s airline rents and fees and other charges. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 11, 2004)
17. Motion to approve a request by Patricia M. Lee for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Palazzo’s located at
231 Fury’s Ferry Road, Suite 101. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 11, 2004)
18. Motion to approve a request by Donnetta L. Killien for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Donnetta’s
located at 2864 Deans Bridge Road. There will be dance. District 2. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
19. Motion to approve a request by Douglas P. Black for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 106 Pleasant
Home Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 11, 2004)
20. Motion to approve a request by Jennifer D. Hartley for a Therapeutic
Massage license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 106
Pleasant Home Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 11, 2004)
21. Motion to approve the extension of an agreement for tennis professional
services at Newman Tennis Center with Mr. David Robinson. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 11, 2004)
22. Motion to approve the request for the WSI Sales/Order Contract. (Approved
by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
23. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and K-Mart
regarding the placement of a transit shelter on Deans Bridge Road and subject to
further negotiations of the Attorney relative to the reduction of the lease payment.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
24. Motion to approve the awarding of Bid # 04-099 for a cardiac monitor to
Phillips Medical Systems who was the low bid. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee October 11, 2004)
25. Motion to approve the hiring of a Financial Project Leader in Information
Technology (IT) at the salary above minimum. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee October 11, 2004 and listed on Administrative Services Committee
under regular agenda)
FINANCE:
26. Motion to approve request for 2002 fund balance to Downtown Development
Authority from Urban Services Fund balance. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 11, 2004)
27. Motion to approve an abatement of $220.06 for Maggie P. Shannon on
property known as 124 East Walker Street, 061-1-021-00-0. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 11, 2004)
28. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15
29. Motion to approve abatement of balance of 2003 tax bill on Map 354, Parcel
19.05. (Approved by Finance Committee October 11, 2004)
30. Motion to approve a request from the Board of Directors of the CSRA
Classic, Inc. for the purchase of tickets for the CSRA Classic. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 11, 2004)
31. Motion to approve the waiver of 2004 property taxes regarding property
leased at 1929 Walton Way to the Augusta Boxing Club in the amount of $1,900.68.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 11, 2004)
32. Motion to approve the purchase of 20 Digital Camera Units at $6,630 each
totaling $132,600.00 from Kustom Signals, Inc. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 11, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
33. Motion to approve Resolution requesting a road name change of Benson
Drive to Butler Bulldog Way. (Approved by Engineering Service Committee
October 11, 2004)
34. Motion to approve execution of contract with American Environmental and
Construction Services, Inc. for remediation of former GBI (Crime Lab) property.
(Approved by Engineering Service Committee October 11, 2004)
35. Motion to approve execution of the Southern Region Industrial Realty, Inc.
Letter of Intent. (Approved by Engineering Service Committee October 11, 2004)
36. Deleted from the consent agenda.
37. Motion to approve and accept a Corrected Easement Deed from Maxwell
Tobacco Road Properties. (Approved by Engineering Service Committee October
11, 2004)
38. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
39. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 5, 2004 and Special Called meeting held October 11, 2004.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 3, 5,
10, 28, 36 and 38. Any others? It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor the consent
agenda then, as amended, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-27, 29-35, 37, 39]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we can, we’ll move over to item number 40. A
number of people are here for that item.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
40. Z-04-67 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Blanchard & Calhoun Real Estate,
on behalf of Robert A. McElmurray, Jr., requesting a Special Exception to establish
16
a church, including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the
west right-of-way line of Brown Road, 520 feet, more or less, south of where the
centerline of McDade Road Extended intersects and contains approximately 24.5
acres. (Tax Map 195 Parcel 25.01). DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any objectors here? If you would, raise your hands
so the Clerk can get a count, please.
(12 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you come up to the podium, please, and give us the
background on this? Mr. Patty is going to address us first.
Mr. Patty: This is a 24-1/2 acre tract on the south side of Brown Road near
McDade Road. It’s rolling farm land. Applicant came to us at our September meeting,
wants to put a church on the site. At the time, there were a couple of objectors, mainly
concerned about traffic and the possibility of there being day care. We didn’t feel that we
had an adequate plan as required by the ordinance at the time, so we got them, we
postponed acting on it and they came back to the October meeting, came back with an
adequate plan. It showed essentially three buildings. One, a 15,000 square foot
sanctuary/fellowship hall, and two other buildings. Two other smaller buildings. And we
had, we had objectors, a number of objections. The traffic, the nature of the
development, the impact on the adjoining property. I think the Planning Commission,
there was a good bit of discussion. I think the Planning Commission felt like I do, that
the property would probably better be used for residential development. It’s right dead
center in the 14,000 acres that we rezoned for R-1 back in 1998, but there were not
sufficient reasons to deny the request of the church and therefore they approved it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. We’ll hear from the petitioners, if you’d
identify yourself and give us your address, please, for the record.
Dr. Davis: Mr. Mayor, Dr. Hardie Davis, pastor of Abundant Life. We also have
some of our members here, if they’d stand as well, supporting this activity.
Mr. Mayor: Are they all residents in the neighborhood?
Dr. Davis: They are.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Dr. Davis: Would you please stand again?
17
Mr. Russell: Raise your hands.
(15 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: Are you all speaking for Mr. McElmurray today?
Dr. David: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, go ahead then.
Dr. Davis: And also, our attorney, Ed Enoch.
Mr. Enoch: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Augusta Commission, my
name is Ed Enoch. I’m an attorney for Abundant Life Ministries. We’re here on behalf
on Abundant Life Ministries to ask for this special exception to the zoning, which is
obviously not anything out of the ordinary. You just approved one for a church on Belair
Road by consent. What we’re asking for is a special exception to allow Mr. Davis and
his church to move and expand. I’ve known the party and his ministry for five or six
years now, helped him establish his church legally. He and his congregants have been
working out of, worshipping out of storefront. When we were in the Planning & Zoning
Commission, there was talk about comparing the facility that we proposed to be built out
there with First Baptist Church on Walton Way. I want to put this in perspective for you.
What we’re talking about is a church that has been operating out of storefront in south
Augusta for five years now with about 200 constituents. Now obviously when the
Planning & Zoning Commission asked for a plan that calls for you to put down what you
honestly think you’re going to do with that property in the future, I don’t know if you
have copies of those plans in front of you, but there are three buildings proposed on there.
A [inaudible] worship center and then two smaller outer buildings, one of which is
labeled the School of Ministry, which is really nothing more than Sunday school. There
has been a lot of talk, and I believe you all got a letter from Pastor Davis earlier this week
addressing rumors that there were going to be a half-way house or a school for young
men out there, and that’s not in the plan. Not part of the work. It’s simply Christian
education. These folks are just good folks who have come together. Hardie is an
engineer by training and a pastor by vocation. And he wants to be a good neighbor. I’ve
worked with Hardie for five years now. I’ve never known him to be stiff-necked or
difficult to deal with. Obviously he wants to be out there and enhance this community
and not make things worse for the folks out there. You’re looking at the Planning &
Zoning ordinance, the test is really a benefits and burden test. Is the church going to be
more of a benefit or more of a burden? And I would ask in 24 acres out there, what other
development are you going to put out there? Mr. Patty recommended residential. There
[inaudible] any more or less of a burden than a church of approximately 200 people.
You’re going to have traffic on Wednesday nights, on Sundays. If you make that
residential you’re going to have traffic 24 hours a day, 24/7. You know, 24 acres you’re
talking hundreds of cars back and forth. So I would suggest to you that this development
is not going to be any more a burden on the neighborhood, certainly than a residential
18
development would be, and it seems to me just inherent that a church enhances the value
of a community. I would hope that we can all agree on that. There is no secret agenda
here. Hardie is not trying to go out there and build a mega-church. The point is to allow
his folks who are called by God to follow him to follow. They’re just out of room.
That’s all I’ve got.
Mr. Mayor: All right, would any of the objectors like to be heard? If you’ll come
up and give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. George: Okay, my name is Jamie George. I live at 4061 Smokey Road. And
we’re not opposed to the church. We do feel that the church would be an asset to our
community. But we’re opposed to have the special exemption as it is written. We have
two amendments that we would like to add to the special exemption, that we feel were
not heard by the Zoning Commission two weeks ago. Rev. Davis is a member of the
Zoning Appeal Board, and we feel that some of the things that he – some of the
statements that were misleading and influenced the Zoning Commission’s decision. Rev.
Davis handed out a petition at the Zoning Commission and he said that there were over
300 signatures. Well, we went down to the board after the meeting and we picked up a
copy. And I don’t know where he got his figures, but there’s only 148 signatures. Not
over 300 as he had stated. Secondly, Rev. Davis had handed out a transcript of a meeting
that the community or that we had of the community at their church. And again, we got a
copy of the transcript. This is only a hand typed copy from notes. It’s not an actual
audio transcript of the, the actual meeting of everything that was said. Now I agree to
everything that was said in these two pages, but it only takes you five minutes to read
these two pages, and we were there approximately an hour and 15 minutes at this
meeting. So there’s a lot that was left out. And again, we feel that it’s misleading. Not
everything was said in this. Also from the meeting, it said that the size of the building
was – well, we got two different, we had – our first question was, what was the size of the
buildings? And at that meeting we had two different sizes that were given to us. So we
went down after this meeting to the board and we got a preliminary drawing which the
church gave them, and it had another size of the building. So now we have three sizes of
the building, and we don’t think it’s too much to ask what is the actually size of this
building going to be? Now we have a petition ourselves of 395 people, and please read
it. I know that my figures are accurate. And again, we are not opposing the church, we
would like two amendments to this special exemption. The first one is a picture of the
property that we’re speaking of. It is 23.78 acres to be exact. And there’s 606 –
Mr. Mayor: All right, just a moment. We [inaudible] the Clerk to pass out things
to the Commission.
Ms. George: Oh, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: So give those to the Clerk and she’ll see that we get those. Okay?
Ms. George: That’s fine.
19
Mr. Mayor: That minimizes the disruptions. Okay. There you go. Thank you
very much. Go ahead.
Ms. George: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and continue.
Ms. George: As you can see, there are 606 feet of road frontage on Brown Road.
If you look at the second page, you can see the church’s proposal of the layout of the
main sanctuary on this piece of property. The blue line is the 23.78 acres that the church
wants to build on. If you’ll look how close the property line that the church, that they
want to place the church, in asking Rev. Davis why build the main sanctuary facing this
direction and so close to the property line, Rev. Davis’ answer was to utilize an already-
existing road. Again, we feel this is not in the pleading. If you look at the third page, this
is the already-existing road that Rev. Davis is referring to. This road is nothing more
than a farmer’s access to his property to feed his cows. So if you turn to the last page, the
top half is what the church’s proposal is. And if you look at the bottom half, this is what
the community is proposing. We’d like to have the church’s main sanctuary built not so
close to the property line, but more towards the middle. And we also think that looking
at the front of the church, not at the side of a building, would be much more appealing.
So that’s our first amendment that we would like. The second request is that church have
no schools for troubled youths or adults that is paid for or reimbursed by a person, private
professional, or government organization. We have repeatedly asked Rev. Davis if he is
planning this kind of school, and the only answer we get is that he is planning on having
Christian education. We understand that there is not going to be any halfway houses that
are going to board these people. It’s the schools that we’re referring to. Now, Christian
education is very broad term, as we all know. And we’re not opposed to Sunday school,
Bible school, mother’s day out, or any other activity that goes within a church. And we
hope that when we say school for troubled youths or adults, this does not get turned
around or misconstrued to say that we are opposed to counseling for individuals that turn
to this church for guidance and help. And regardless of what Rev. Davis [inaudible] says,
[inaudible] Christian education, we would like it in writing, just like our amendment says,
that no schools for troubled youths or adults that is paid for or reimbursed by any person,
private professional or government organization. We are a rural community on Brown
Road and we are growing and we want to make sure that how we grow is an
enhancement to our community.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other speakers from your group? Okay. Mr.
Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Excuse me, I didn’t get your name, ma’am.
Ms. George: Jamie George.
Mr. Colclough: What’s the name of your neighborhood association?
20
Ms. George: We don’t have one. We all just ban together.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. Thank you, ma’am.
Ms. George: We’re neighbors.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else on the Commission? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is something that is in my district and it
would be hard for me to win either way. But I strongly recommend that we allow the
church group and the neighborhood group to meet with one of our attorneys and his
attorney, Mr. Patty, and two people from each side and go in a room and work this out
and stay in there till they get it worked out, where we can all win. I just think that’s what
we need to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, would you want to make a motion to table this and allow
them to go meet with the – there’s Mr. Shepard now and he could take this back in the
conference room.
Dr. Davis: Mr. Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, pastor?
Dr. Davis: I really appreciate the honorable Commissioner Jimmy Smith, who is
our district Commissioner. I think it’s vitally important for us to dispense with this issue
as quickly as possible. The amendments that have been brought forth, I believe we’ve
already addressed. Specifically, I’ll go in reverse order. Amendment no. 2, as it relates
to halfway houses, shelters for troubled individuals, we’ve addressed that already in
written form, with the memo that was sent to the Commission. There is a copy of that
that each of the Commissioner should have at this time. We’ve addressed that issue,
because it is our sincere desire to work with the neighbors that are in that area. We want
to do that and we will continue to do that. As it relates to amendment no. 1, specifically
the orientation of the building, with the associated access road that is currently there on
the property. In our initial site plan that we showed to the residents who we hosted at our
church on September 21, we indicated at that time that we had just gotten a copy of that.
We had not had opportunity to thoroughly review that and so we simply had that on a
projection screen where we allowed them to view that as we [inaudible] view that. We
were as forthcoming with that information as we could be at that time. As it relates to the
orientation of the building, we intend to fully move that so that it is facing Brown Road
and not facing the access road that is currently there. So we are addressing, and again,
this is a public hearing, this is meeting of record, and so we’re stating unequivocally that
we do intend to move that so that it is not facing or situated as you currently see it on the
site plan. Those are the two issues that have been raised here. One, we’ve already
addressed, as was requested, in writing. And two, the other issue, because this is a public
meeting, it is a meeting of record, we are stating unequivocally that we will move the
building and orient it such that we are accessing it off of Brown Road and not off of the
21
road that is currently there, which is an access road, but in the original site plan our
intentions were to go in an through engineering pave that and obviously use that because
it was already there. But we will do those things that are necessary. So I don’t think that
it requires us to have a separate meeting, again, with all respect to our Commissioner, Mr.
Smith, we have resolved those issues, in my opinion, at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Apparently there is a difference of opinion and we’re going to try to
resolve that difference of opinion in this meeting today. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it sounds to me like with what the reverend has said and
what the neighborhood has requested, if we’re, if you guys are happy with your
amendments and that’s all that you would like to see added to this and y’all are
addressing it, I’m certainly sure for your, I guess, peace of mind that you’d like these in
writing as part of the motion itself, so I’m going to make a motion that we approve it with
the requested recommended amendments which it sounds like ya’ll have already done to
the measure and approve it based on the addition of those two amendments that you
asked for.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
The Clerk: Ms. Sims already seconded.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s make sure we’ve got those amendments clear in the
record here today so we know what we’re voting on. Let’s make sure we’ve got the
wording right in the motion and then we’ll move on with the discussion. We’ll ask the
Clerk to read those, ask the Clerk to read those two amendments.
The Clerk: This letter is from Abundant Life Worship Center with the signature of
Dr. Hardie Davis, Jr. Subject, request for a special exception to establish a church
including day care activities on property on Brown Road. {reading) “I want to take an
opportunity and address several concerns that have been brought to my attention by
supporters of the Abundant Life Worship Center project on Brown Road. It is my
understanding that there are several rumors suggesting that Abundant Life will be
building halfway houses and youth homes on the subject property being circulated.
Abundant Life has no plans nor is it our mission to build or pursue halfway houses or
youth home related activities on the subject property. This along with several other
rumors continue to be promulgated by residents located in the area of the property.
Abundant Life has unequivocally stated that it has never been our plan to build such
facilities. The site plan presented at the October 4, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
was a narrative of our plans for the property. As indicated, we will be building a
sanctuary, family life center, and eventually a Christian education building. This project
will in no way minimize the existing neighborhood. Rather, it will enhance the area and
continue to add value to the overall community. It is our hope that this issue can be
22
resolved and the residents’ fears alleviated as they accept the facts of our current plan and
future plans. Abundant Life will not build halfway houses on this property.”
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And I believe that the pastor also represented today that the
building would front on Brown Road. So those would be the amendments in your
motion. Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for clarity’s sake, it is the intent of the motion that
this language that the neighborhood asked for, which is included in the letter, but that that
language be included as part of the measure, you know, in what they asked for. It sounds
like the intention is they’re not to do anything other than that, and you know, we can kick
this around all afternoon, but the neighborhood has asked for the reorientation –
Ms. George: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] the reverend has represented it’s not going to be any
different that that, that that language be added to the measure and we approve it based on
the recommendations, requests from the neighborhood which are the things that the
reverend and the church are already planning to do.
Ms. Sims: And that is the motion I seconded.
The Clerk: That is that the front of the main sanctuary of the church to be parallel
to Brown Road and be more centrally located on the property to allow for greater buffer
zones to property on either side of the sanctuary building and its parking lot. Two, that no
schools for troubled youth or adults that is paid for or reimbursed by any person or
private professional or governmental organization be built.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Now, we’ve had some special exemptions come down
here for years and years.
Mr. Mayor: Can’t hear you.
Mr. Hankerson:
We’ve had special exemptions for churches to come down here
for years and years. First of all, I want to commend this pastor for the great work that he
has been doing in this community and his parishioners. Any pastor that choose a
storefront next door to a liquor store, I have to really commend you for staying there in
that area. I passed by that area, when I first saw it my eyes stretched, I said my goodness,
but I guess it’s in a good place. And apparently that you didn’t go overboard. We didn’t
get any complaints. And I’m quite sure that somebody probably was saved. But what
I’m hearing here in these amendments, I do not approve with that, and I will offer a
substitute motion. This church has purchased over 20 acres of land. Now in the future,
23
when God gives this man a vision in the future, we don’t want to lock him in and say that
he can’t help youth. In this amendment it’s also stating about he cannot receive
reimbursements. And people always make charitable contributions to churches for
ministry. I don’t want him to lock himself in in that. I think that’s a little bit overboard
to say that he cannot build a halfway house unless he comes back before this
Commission. He cannot build those things unless he come back before the Commission.
But in the future, with 24 acres of land of expansion and I’m quite sure in the next 20
years other homes are going to be build on Brown Road, that’s going to be a great
community out there. I’m very familiar with Brown Road, I’m a country boy, I was born
in McBean, and I attended elementary school at Hephzibah Elementary, I road the school
bus to Hephzibah on Brown Road, past McElmurray. I know exactly where it is. And
my grandfather farmed down there, had farm, had a lot of farm land down there in that
are. So I’m very familiar with the area. There are a lot of good people. I think it’s good
people came from the other side. But I think it’s a misconception of what the church is
going to be. A church is a part of a community. A school is a part of a community. And
I heard the attorney say that his plans are not building anything like First Baptist
downtown, but if that’s what God want him to do and that’s the vision, I think it should
be even larger than First Baptist downtown if it want to. But I don’t think that this is
going to cause a negative impact on this community and I encourage him not to make a
commitment to not – to accept those amendments to what he’s not going to do as far as
the ministry and accepting reimbursements and all of that. I think that’s a little bit too far
and I make a substitute motion that we approve this request as he has stated in his
letter. He has already said that he would turn the church around facing Brown
Road and I make a substitute motion that we approve that coming from the pastor
and his church.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Let me – I’d like to ask the
petitioner, have you all closed on the sale of this property yet?
Ms. Speaker: No.
Mr. Mayor: So your purchase is contingent on the zoning change, is that? You
don’t own the property today?
Dr. Davis: I own the property.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Dr. Davis: I own the property.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve closed on the sale today?
Dr. Davis: I close on it as soon as this meeting is over.
24
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Just want to clarify.
Ms. George: Am I allowed to say something?
Mr. Mayor: Well, just a minute. Let me make sure all the Commissioners speak.
This is a Commission meeting. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wholeheartedly endorse the church. I’ve
known the preacher for a long time and I respect him, but I also respect these community
people. They are not satisfied, and I still think they need to talk and everybody be
satisfied. If you don’t, it’s going to be something going on from now on if we don’t go
into, everybody agreeing – I don’t mean everybody can agree on it, but at least sit down
at the table with some common sense give-and-take and where people will not go into
this thing mad and it will be a never-ending squabble on Brown Road. I happen to live
out there, too, and I would like to see us maintain a good neighborhood like we have
now, and I’d just recommend there is some more talking needs to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, have had several phone calls from
the neighbors and also from the petitioner in regards to this facility. And I feel like that
what I’m hearing today, is there has been some compromises on both sides as to the
neighbors not objecting to the idea of the church, but having some minor objections
based on the placement of the buildings and also on the youth homes. And as Rev.
Hankerson said, in order for them to build youth homes, they are going to have to come
back to get permits, they’re going to have to come back to get those type of things. He’s
committing to you today in writing that he’s not doing that. And I know Rev. Hankerson
has asked that we ignore that request based on his letter. But if he’s willing to submit
that to us, that would be in the form of what he intends for this church to do, then I feel
like you have come to that conclusion with both parties making adjustments on what has
been requested. So I don’t have a problem with it, Mr. Mayor, and I feel like that if there
needs to be something put in writing, then our attorney and Mr. Davis’ attorney, if the
neighbors have an attorney, they need to get together. I don’t know that we need to send
these people back into a room together to hash out their problems when all we may do is
bring more problems back out with them. And so I would like to bring this to a
conclusion on the two requests that have been made and has been submitted by both sides
that that’s what they’re willing to do and that we go ahead and move along with this.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I think what I’d like to see is Commissioner Cheek’s motion. I believe
that what they’re asking is that it just simply be put in writing what you have promised.
If you have promised and you’re in compliance with what they’re saying, I don’t see a
problem with your not [inaudible]. That would make them happy and it would reinforce
what you have spoken, so I would like to go back to the Commissioner’s original motion,
that you simply put in writing what they are requesting, and you’ve already stated that
25
you’re happy with that. So I don’t see a problem with writing it for them, and then
everybody is satisfied.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the way the original motion was made, it would be a condition
of the zoning. That would be a condition of the zoning. The way it is in the substitute
motion, it would not be a condition of the zoning, it would just be a statement of intent by
these people. That’s the difference between the two motions.
Mr. Hankerson: One thing we must realize is that churches today are not like
churches of yesterday. There are opportunities and there are people that like make
contributions, invest in churches or ministry, even Sunday school, even [inaudible] but
what I’m hearing about not accepting those contributions or reimbursements, that, that’s,
that’s the part that I do not agree with, in accepting that motion that Mr. Cheek made.
And from being in church and being involved with church, I know that that’s very – I
mean every church, the First Baptist, every church, what would happen if a deceased
member decide to leave them a foundation for the Sunday school class? That [inaudible]
he can’t even accept a $1 million foundation. Just only a few weeks ago a pastor from
Philadelphia came over in South Carolina, presented a check for $100,000 to the ministry
of that church. So you get the contributions and reimbursements and all of that from all
directions. So what I’m saying is I think they’re being a little bit two strong on that,
turning the church around. He has agreed to do that and we know that he can’t build –
that’s not in his vision to build a halfway house. And those sort of things. That would
have to come back before the Commission. That’s why I made the substitute motion.
You got to look at every little detail in that motion that was made, from the amendments
that they asked for.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we forgetting something here.
We hassle over this in Planning & Zoning. I sit on Planning & Zoning. But you may be
able to limit man, but you can’t limit God. We need to understand that whatever plan
that God has for this ministry or any other ministry, it’s going to prevail. I agree with
Commissioner Hankerson on the limitations of accepting funds and donations to church.
I’m a little confused as to why we need to continue to talk. The pastor has already stated
in this letter that he’s agreed to facing the church a different way. He even agreed in his
letter, on the document here, in this meeting, that he’s not planning to put any kind of
school of any sort, so Mr. Mayor, I think we need to call for the question and let’s go
ahead and vote. We keep talking about this. We going to talk ourselves into another
situation concerning this same church. There are several issues that done come up in my
mind that I could bring out. I’m just going to let it go. But I thought we would go ahead
and move since Planning & Zoning voted on this and approved it. We go ahead, we got
the stipulation that the community wanted. Let’s go ahead and take a vote, Mr. Mayor,
so we can be about the City’s business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
26
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for a point of clarification. In my motion, I don’t
think that these neighbors intend to limit the ability of this ministry to raise funds except
as they pertain to being applied to a special training for – that would be similar to a
halfway house and so forth. They’re not attempting to limit to create foundations, you
know. These folks, I know most of these folks, just like I know the minister here. I think
they’re all closer, a lot closer on this than it seems at this point in time. The whole
bottom line is they don’t want to limit that – I mean who knows where minister Brown
[sic] may go in the future, where the church may go in the future. The thing is they’re
just asking to protect their community from having the establishment of training
programs and halfway houses that will bring people with a criminal history to their
neighborhood. That’s the only thing. In specifying that in the, in the document it’s very
clear cut. It doesn’t limit the church’s ability to raise money for anything else in the
world. They’re just saying don’t bring this to our community. And it’s consistent with
what the reverend is already saying. So I mean –
Mr. Mayor: Do you have some new information? We’re not going to sit here and
keep rehashing stuff.
Ms. George: I’m just saying that I think we were, everything we said was turned
around by Mr. Hankerson. That we’re not against Sunday school and Bible school and
all that. And certainly we’re not against donations and tithings. And if there was a will.
We don’t mean that and we don’t want it to be misconstrued of what we’re trying to say.
We’re saying – we understand about not having a home for troubled youths or a halfway
house. We’re saying a school. And when Rev. Davis says Christian education, well, you
can have a prayer before school, at lunch, and afterwards, and that would be considered
Christian education. What we’re saying is exactly what our petition said, and that was
that no school for troubled youths or adults, reimbursed by – and when I say persons, I
don’t mean giving a tithe or anything, but reimbursed actually going for the school.
That’s what we mean.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I thought we was going to get on, but I’m
going to have to do what I got to do. The Bible talks about the sick don’t – you know,
ought to be able to go to the hospital, the well don’t need a hospital. Those people that
sick, those people that in need, those people that needing counseling, those people that
need the ministry, and that’s what the ministry is about. About helping people, changing
people’s lives, showing people that there is a better way. Now if you going to limit a
church from showing people the better way, then it’s not going to be a church. Now they
don’t need a building to go into cause they can find a building anywhere. But if you
going to be a church, you are going to have to do what God calls you to do and that’s the
issue of ministry to the world, not just to Brown Road but to anybody that comes that
needs. Whether they be drunks, whether they be sick, whether it be, whether it be young,
the ministry of the Lord has got to go on. So now, I thought we was going go on with
this, but we getting to a point now where we not doing what we ought to be doing.
27
That’s voting on what Planning & Zoning already approved. We already worked out the
logistics. Let’s go ahead and vote so we can get about our Father’s business.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by the Commissioner. Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, if I could, I want to ask one, one neutral question for just a
moment, and that’s of the city attorney. Zoning, I know, Mr. Shepard can – and I’m glad
that they have agreements in terms of the main parts and that’s what is going to be there,
and I think the question in reference to the fronting of the church facility, which we’ve
put conditions many times on zoning. Planning & Zoning board does it, we do it, Zoning
Appeals does it. What I’d like to know before we vote on either motion in terms of what
is included in conditions, are we putting conditions into either one of these motions that
are not consistent with zoning conditions? Because I’m, I think they are clear in terms of
where they agree on where zoning conditions are. What I’m asking, though, when you
start getting into, into finances and other things of that, is that a condition that you put
into a zoning motion? And whether we can, as a governing body, deal with that in
placing that in? What I want to do is make sure we’re not delving into a gray area that
we cannot enforce through a vote by this Commission. And that’s a neutral question.
That’s not aimed at the petition or -
Mr. Mayor: Steve, use that microphone to respond, so everybody can hear you.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I
would say that conditions that relate to land use are zoning, but as it relates to financing
would not be zoning. So we’ve talked about orientation of the building, I think that’s a
form of land use. That would be appropriate. But any way, any condition as to
financing, I don’t see that that’s our business. The first, the first motion included
conditions which I thought related only to zoning, and can have that reread, if you want.
My notes said it was the orientation of the building and to have it more centered on
Brown Road, that the church would front onto Brown Road. There was no, no obligation
or there was no really intention by the petitioners to center it on the side as it was
depicted. And so they would re-orient that. So those are zoning land use type conditions,
Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I thought we had conditions in the second one. I’m just
trying to get some clarity, Steve, before I vote.
Mr. Shepard: Right.
Ms. Sims: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: That’s the way I understood it. I was sitting by the maker of the
motion. The maker of the substitution motion had no conditions in this, in this.
28
Mr. Mayor: We’re talking about the original motion.
The Clerk: The original motion had two conditions.
Mr. Shepard: Right.
The Clerk: One dealt with land use and one dealt with finances.
Mr. Shepard: Well my ruling would be that you can only have conditions as to
land use.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s make sure that Mr. Mays –
Mr. Mays: I’m clear. I just wanted us to be in separating those that are Caesar’s
and those that are God’s. I just want to separate that church and state use. I wanted to
get it clear on the motion of whether we had a legal right to delve into that or we don’t
have a legal right to delve into it. I just wanted to get it clarified. That’s all I wanted to
get.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: The purpose for which a property is zoned, the actual business or
whatever that’s conducted on that property is as much land use because it’s what the land
is used for, and all we’re asking at this point in time is a compromise that allows the
church to carry out its ministry but has language in there consistent with what the church
is already planning to do, but the neighborhood has asked just not to have that type of
training program in the church. And as said earlier, we can’t hold back the ministry of
God. If God wants a ministry in there, He’ll find a way to make it happen, and it will be
better than what we could come up with on this floor. But the neighborhood has the right
to be protected, just like the church does, and they’re asking for some very simple
compromises here, in this language, consistent already with what I hear the minister
saying he’s going to bring to the floor. That is the purpose of the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, we’ll hear from you and then let’s move ahead with the
vote on the substitute motion.
Mr. Smith: Is there something still that the neighborhood is hung up on, is not
satisfied with?
Ms. George: No, just those two things.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] amendment and we’re happy.
Ms. George: Just the way we stated in our petition.
29
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The second condition then is what? I don’t have that.
Ms. George: That no schools for trouble youths or adults, that is paid for or
reimbursed by any person, private professional, or government organization be
established.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve been over this. Let’s move ahead with the substitute
motion.
Mr. Williams: I was just going say, Mr. Mayor, that the Commissioner makes the
[inaudible] vote it up or down, let’s go ahead and vote.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead, this will be on the substitute motion from
Commissioner Hankerson. All in favor of the substitute motion, which is to approve it
as presented to us in the agenda today –
Mr. Smith: Can we read that again, Mayor?
The Clerk: The motion?
Mr. Smith: Substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to approve the petition with the special
exception to establish a church including day care facility on Brown Road, with the
consent of Abundant Life to face the building on Brown Road.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the substitute motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Grantham and Ms. Sims vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any people in the audience today for item
number 41, which is another zoning? Okay, Madame Clerk, we’ll take a moment to clear
the chamber for those from this item who would like to leave and we’ll move on to item
30
41. Okay, Madame Clerk, let’s move along with the order of the day. We’ll take up item
number 41.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If we could, item 46 was approval of a pension – 48, I’m sorry –
for 1977 pension plan. We got some people, if we can approve that, Mr. Mayor, and get
that one –
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got 41 next. We’ve got a delegation for that one.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Then we can get 48.
Mr. Mayor: Then if you’ll remind me, we’ll go to 48.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: 41, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
41. Z-04-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the multi-party
agreement be signed and executed and 2) that if necessary the Special Exception
shall be reconsidered by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission per the
agreement; a petition by Robert Brown, on behalf of James Bricker, requesting a
Special Exception in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone for composting paunch manure,
per Section 24-2 (17) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 824 Sand Bar Ferry Road and
containing approximately 9 acres. (Tax map 91 Parcel 1) DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Are there any objectors here? I counted
three, Madame Clerk.
(3 objectors noted)
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: This is, this involves the makers of Kricket Krap and other [inaudible]
products down on the river on Sand Bar Ferry Road. I’m going to spare you the details
on this, but a couple of years ago they – they had been using various ingredients in
making the mulch that they make, and a couple of years ago, due to some problems
31
involving someone other than them, in some of the materials they brought in, they started
creating a substantial odor in that area, and the folks at [inaudible] and Goodale Landing
suffered for a couple of years, and finally EPD got involved and that operation was shut
down. And through work that we’ve done with the petitioners and EPD has done with
petitioners and others and some involvement by some residents at Goodale – not all
residents – and some residents of [inaudible] an agreement has been reached on how this
process might be watched in the future and how the applicants can do a better job of
monitoring the material that comes in so that there is no longer a smell. The Planning
Commission approved it with the condition that the agreement that has been reached
between the parties, essentially three parties plus the City, if you agree to approve this
zoning subject to this agreement, which is a non-binding advisory committee that would
be set up to monitor the obviously subjective issues as far as whether or not there is a
smell and whether or not it’s coming from them. Keep in mind that they operate in the
shadow of various plants that generate tremendous amounts of airborne pollutants. This
agreement is, like I say, it’s simply – it would be an advisory committee that would meet.
It has parameters for how they would meet, if needed, and how they would decide
whether to ask you all to rescind approval of the special exemption you’re being asked to
grant, which is a special exception for the purpose of using animal parts in, animal parts.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] agreement?
Mr. Patty: I’ve got copies of it. I’ve got a copy of it here. The city attorney has
seen it.
Mr. Mayor: It would be good if the Commission saw it.
Ms. Sims: We don’t have copies.
Mr. Patty: I can read it to you. Here it is. Do you want me to read it, Mr.
Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we get some copies made? So everybody can have a
copy of it. Let’s do that.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While you’re passing that out, I have a
question as to how this advisory committee is to be formed or who is to make these
appointments, and I had a call from – I guess you might say the Kricket Krap expert, Mr.
Clyde Lester, who I put a whole lot of faith in when it comes to situations like this,
knowing what he’s been involved with in the agricultural field. And Clyde, Clyde pretty
much assured me that within this committee that he felt like this was something that
needed to be done, that that facility is certainly important to this area, and that he would,
he would like to be one that would serve on a committee as such, and so I’m going to
32
recommend, based on the agreement that you’re passing out that we approve the
recommendation by Planning and Zoning that includes this special advisory committee
but I would like to know how it is appointed. That’s the motion that I’ll make, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and second. Well, let’s hear from the petitioner
and the objectors. Is the petitioner here? If you’ll come up and give us your name and
address for the record.
Mr. Brown: My name is Robert Brown, 4524 Hillside Drive, Evans, Georgia.
He’s right. A few years ago, we did have a problem. We have been composting since
1978. And in all those years, we had some problems the last two years. What we are
composting is not animal parts. It’s called paunch manure. I’ve got somebody here from
Shapiro to explain it to you, show it you, and all we would do is like to go back to work.
Like I said, John is going to take over the business. We’ve got new ownership coming in.
And we’d just like an opportunity to do it again.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got some objectors here. Is there a spokesman for
the group or do y’all want to speak individually? Give us your name and address for the
record.
Mr. Patterson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, thank you. My name is
John Patterson. I own property both at 820 Riverfront Drive, which is in the Goodale
Landing town homes, and also at 662 Riverfront Drive, which is in the Goodale Landing
subdivision but not represented by the Goodale Landing homeowners association. I
provided each one of you with a letter yesterday that stated formally what my objections
are to the approval of this zoning special exception. I hope you’ve had a chance to read
it, but if not, let me go over just a few of the salient points and a few other things that I
found on the web today. Those of us that lived in Commissioner Beard’s area for years
had to suffer through the most noxious of odors emanating from Bricko Farms. For
years. As did our neighbors in South Carolina. For years they had the opportunity to
take voluntary compliance measures and repair the situation. They did not. They now
propose to substitute voluntary compliance measure with the threat of law, and it was
only through the threat of law that corrective action was taken. Secondly, the agreement
upon which this special exception would be based, and I don’t now if you have it yet. If
you do, I ask your attention to item two. Item two waives my right as a resident to object
to this action to this production formation. There is a signature line for residents on that
agreement, and I certainly don’t intend to sign. There are other people in the audience
who don’t intend to sign, and many of my friends and neighbors don’t intend to sign.
Third, I looked on the web for jurisdictions which have regulations specific to paunch
manure processing. Virtually all of them would preclude paunch manure processing in a
flood-prone zone. Those of you who know where Kricket Krap is know that it is located
in one of the most flood-prone areas of the city. For those reasons, I encourage all of you
to vote against this special exception.
33
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Brown: We have been working with EPD, the University of Georgia on this
material, and it safely can be composted. We are in the shadow of industries that in 2002
put out 6,945,000 pounds of pollutants right next to us. Now how could we be the only
ones that smell?
Mr. Patterson: Could I offer a suggestion? You know, poll the people that live
down there. Poll the people that have had to suffer through it and they will tell you that
yes, we live in the shadow of those other industries, but there was only one that generated
such outrage among the residents. One of the things that you have in front of you is
agreement that was submitted by the Goodale Landing Homeowners Association. Part of
my letter asks that you disregard that because I think that the process they followed is one
that did not follow what should be done in this case. The residents were not polled. It
was done by a group of people who purport to represent my interests. They do not. And
without the written agreement of the residents on the agreement you have in front of you,
I don’t see how the proposed special exception can have any statement.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the signature on here is Mr. Jeffords’ and he is the president of
the homeowners association.
Mr. Patterson: But he does not represent the residents.
Mr. Mayor: He is the president of the homeowners association; correct?
Mr. Patterson: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: So your issue is with him, not –
Mr. Patterson: No, it’s not.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not here with us.
Mr. Patterson: There are residents throughout that area that –
Mr. Mayor: It’s not our responsibility to poll the people down there. When we
have issues that deal with neighborhoods, we tend to look at the neighborhood
association as the duly elected representatives of people in that neighborhood.
Mr. Patterson: And they do not represent – there are residents down there that are
not members of the Goodale Landing Homeowners Association. One of them is sitting
right back there in red. I am one of them. They represent a portion of that group.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think it’s safe to say everyone who speaks represents himself.
That settles it. I mean people don’t speak for other people generally in these cases. Mr.
34
Patty, I’m a little concerned about the way you’ve got this thing structured in this
agreement, about meetings within so many days and what not, and then this whole thing
could end up back down here again with putting the Commission in the middle of a
dispute between the homeowners and Bricko on a reconsideration of the special
exception. This really doesn’t solve any potential problems. It just defers them back
here to the Commission again.
Mr. Patty: This agreement wouldn’t preclude any property owner from coming
before this Commission just like they could on any other zoning matter. It would give, I
think, special attention to the members of this agreement, four of whom would be – well,
six of whom would be members of the homeowners association or owners of property in
[inaudible]. And the petitioner is acknowledging the fact that if this happens again and if
these people all agree, you know, to this subjectively that this odor is a problem, because
there is no objective way to measure. I suppose there is but it’s outside of our capability
to do it. Then I would think that would have special standing before you, that there is in
fact a problem and that you need to think about sending what you [inaudible]. This was a
serious problem back before they got it under control and –
Mr. Mayor: But the whole thing is that there is a recommendation for a special
exception for the representation that the odor problem has been dealt with. And this
shouldn’t come back down here. Or maybe the special exception shouldn’t be granted if
the odor is indeed – the potential is there for it not to be under control. I don’t know
about the other ten folks at this table but I don’t know – if this is that tire that Mr. Mays
keep talking about, you don’t get, you don’t want to get run over [inaudible]. And I don’t
know how many times the Commissioners will want this issue coming back to them
because somebody, you know, some folks in the neighborhood are smelling an odor and
they’re in a dispute with the owner of the Bricko Farms as to whether or not this odor is
offensive or an annoyance, and here we come back down to the Commission again and
let the Commissioners determine whether it smells bad or not or whether this should be
affirmed or rescinded. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sit in on Planning & Zoning and I
thought I was enlightening Ms. Beard on some stuff that I heard in Planning & Zoning
but I’m all together confused now. I was under the impression that the neighborhood or
the neighborhood association had gotten with everybody in that neighborhood and that
association to speak for them for a group, cause I was under the impression, George, that
with Bricko and the neighborhood association, along with another party who was there,
and I think they had an attorney that lived in that area, Mr. Patty, who was [inaudible]
and I asked her a direct question. The question is if, if this odor comes back, who
determine whether or not it’s a foul odor or it’s, it’s disturbing enough to close the
facility down? If a neighbor comes in and says I smelled it and it could have been the,
the plant over here that process the cows could have had the odor that drifted down that
way. It was just on the news the other day about the chickens’ manure that they brought
in and how it saturated. And if that was related to Bricko, then this man be put out of
business with this document, George. I’m really, I need some explaining, too, Mr.
Mayor. I need somebody to let me know. Cause I thought the neighborhood, Planning &
35
Zoning, Bricko had got together, everybody was on the same page, they [inaudible] agree
that if this odor became foul again that within 30 days they would have to shut down.
Well, that’s not what I’m hearing now from this property owner. And I really need some
clarification.
Mr. Patty: Well, when this came up and it’s been six months ago, I called
Jeffords, because Mr. Jeffords had been the most – the strongest objector to a
development proposal in that area. I guess it’s been two years ago now. And he had
objected to other things down there as well. And I knew he was the chairman of the
homeowners association. I also knew that there are two different groups down there.
There were at the time we dealt with this condominium project and I called someone in
[inaudible], frankly, I don’t remember who it was now, and we sat down, six or seven of
us, and I don’t remember who they were. But they were people who lived in the
neighborhood, and we talked about ways that we could conceivably let Bricko do what
they needed to do. They need to be able to use this material in order to do their process.
And after a lengthy meeting, we came up with the idea of an agreement. It would simply
create an advisory committee made up of the people that were interested that could come
down here and say look, this is a big problem, you need to take the big step of rescinding
this zoning that you created. The material they’re talking about using is paunch manure.
It comes off, it is the stomach contents of the cows that have been slaughtered up at
Bricko [sic]. We could argue about whether or not it’s animal parts. My call was that it
is because – well, we won’t get into that. But EPD got involved in the process at
Shapiro. And there are folks from Shapiro here that have even got a sample of material,
if you want to see it or smell it. They, they had to make some changes at Shapiro in how
they separate their wastes. The folks at Bricko have come up with a method that they’ll
pick this stuff up in their own loaders, they’ll load it in their own trucks, they’ll quality
control every load of it, and it seems to be a failsafe system that they’re proposing, that
there should not be any more odor. But in hearing from the folks at [inaudible] and at
Goodale about the magnitude of the problem they had a couple of years ago, they
couldn’t walk out of their doors without their eyes watering and couldn’t spend time on
their patios, I think it’s incumbent on us to do everything we can to protect the residents
and at the same time do everything we can to let Bricko operate and not have to move
somewhere else from the location they’ve been in for 20-something years or 30-
something years. And the agreement just seemed to be a way to do that. No, it’s not
perfect, but nobody would have to relinquish their right to come down here and object if
there is a problem, as an individual, and I would think it would give special standing to
the members of this committee to come down here and convince you that there is a
problem that’s bad enough that you need to take action.
Mr. Mayor: What else? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Patty, this document that is signed by the president of the
homeowners association, did you – do you know if the homeowners association called a
meeting?
Mr. Patty: Do not know.
36
Mr. Colclough: You did not, you just –
Mr. Patty: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Mr. Colclough: So there was no meeting of the minds of the homeowners
association when this decision, this document was signed?
Mr. Patty: I can tell you he brought several members, several residents to the
meeting in my office. Now who they were, who they represented, I don’t know. I
assumed that he represented all members and most of the residents.
Mr. Colclough: Was there minutes of the meeting in your office?
Mr. Patty: Sir?
Mr. Colclough: Was any minutes taken at the meeting?
Mr. Patty: No, no, this was an informal meeting. 15, maybe 20 people in my
office.
Mr. Colclough: So he just – I can assume that he just made this decision on his
own without calling a meeting of the association – wait a minute, sir, let me finish, okay?
I can assume, I’m just assuming, I don’t know that by rather than by calling a meeting of
his homeowners association and discussing this with them, I don’t know, don’t live there,
don’t know where it’s at, he just signed an agreement saying that the homeowners
association approved this agreement, and I got homeowners down here that say they’re
not members of that association who don’t agree with it.
Mr. Patty: Sir, I don’t know what the process was that he used to decide he could
sign it on their behalf.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, Mr. Patty, I think my question I need to probably direct to
you. In the essence of fairness in terms of the residents concerned and then the rights of
the business to try and get re-established, let me ask a couple of questions that I’m just
not clear on with the magnitude of stuff that flows by us, and I remember when this
situation came up. But two or three questions. The first one would be when, when the
operations ceased because of the complaints, who was in charge of hearing that or the
monitorship of determining that there was a problem? What agency?
Mr. Patty: EPD. EPD shut them down. One basis for them shutting them down
was the fact that they did not have local zoning authority to do what they were doing.
They’re in a heavy industrial zone and they’re zoned to do composting and everything
37
else that is done [inaudible] except they’re not – they needed a special exception to
handle animal parts. And I don’t have the exact language and ordinance with me.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Patty: And it came down to my call that that stuff was in fact animal parts
and we needed to deal with this. So I don’t know that EPD had any other reason other
than they didn’t comply with local zoning and shut them down.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this. In terms of trying to deal with the line of
communications and reestablishing and of obviously of their wanting to not be back in
and be in violation of anything but at the same time the concerns of residents in that area,
what role has EPD played in the reopening and in terms of is there a line of
communication with them and an inspections policy and an approval from them in terms
of the plant reopening and coming into compliance with certain standards that they wish
for it to operate by? And the question I’m driving at is if went through a State situation
to be cited and to be closed, then where are they in this process in terms of the reopening?
Mr. Patty: Okay, EPD initially made the statement, the verbal statement that this
material was in fact a solid waste and it needed to be deposited in a landfill and could not
be used as compost. Now they backed off on that and I’ve got a letter in the file,
September 9 letter from Harold Gillespie, the manager of the Solid Waste Management
Program, that implies – it doesn’t come right out and say it, but the purpose of the letter is
to tell us they intend to –
Mr. Mays: I hadn’t got, I hadn’t got a real straight answer from them in several
decades.
Mr. Patty: Well, this is not a straight answer.
Mr. Mays: Don’t – I know it’s not. I take your word for that. It definitely won’t
be a straight answer.
Mr. Patty: It says to me that they can in fact use this material to make this
product.
Mr. Mays: What I’m getting it, and I think, I want to make sure and I’m not
trying to be anti-business and to get them in a situation where they can’t reopen. I also
want to make sure that if they reopen that the concerns and fears are taken care of. The
problem I have is that when a state agency shuts a situation down, I have a real problem
if we do not have and we are saying that by our own admission – if we are putting
together an advisory group and on that advisory group there is probably only from the
owner’s side of having a certain level of expertise of what they have, but from the
Commission side and from residents, I’m sure you’re not going to have a level of
expertise which can determine past the smell with a nose whether or not you’ve got a
violation or not. And I have a little bit of a problem with a State agency when they shut
38
something down and then deal with a lack of monitorship and just basically write a letter
that you can determine any kind of way and say okay, fine, reopen. That’s not necessarily
fair to them at Bricko, but the obviously it’s not fair to residents that I’ve got in the
eastern end of my district from the standpoint I think they would like to, and I don’t think
[inaudible] having to say they want to bring bad times on the business owner, but I think
what they need to have, some assurance there if a State agency closes then where is their
recourse other than some volunteer committee that you put together? Because if they
come in, say okay, it smells bad, all right then who determines whether or not it’s
[inaudible]. I don’t think he wants to be in the vulnerable position. If something smells
as bad [inaudible] that’s not his, that he can be closed up [inaudible] 15 minutes of one of
these meetings and he’s out of business, but at the same time that’s the only recourse that
you lave this group in doing it. I think there’s a missing piece in this puzzle that needs to
be added that would give him that right of security, of reopening, but at the same time
give them some comfort zone or monitorship that at least the people who shut it down are
going to be somewhere in this mix that they have a reporting agency to deal with.
Because you bring it to us and we make that determination based on the fact that there is
a complaint. That’s a very gray area to a point that they have less than a leg to stand on
in terms of doing it but at the same time it could be where a majority of the members
[inaudible] the night before and you could be out of business the next day. I think, I
don’t necessarily think this one can be resolved today from the standpoint of either side
in here, especially of where the comfort zone would be if I’m sitting there and what some
of these people have been through. It’s not your fault with everything they’ve been
through. That smell issue is one thing. But when they’ve had a drawdown by the Corps
of Engineers, had a wall [inaudible] in their area to a point of it, [inaudible] what we sign
on as a government, too, I don’t think they need one more layer of bureaucracy which
says nothing for them in any level of protection. That’s the problem that I have with it in
representing them in that area. Same time, you are a business owner in that area. Your
business is in my district. I want to make sure that when you reopen you are secure
enough with a document that’s not so flimsy that it could be somebody else’s air blowing,
it could be coming across the river from another state. And you’re out of business to do
with it. So I think, Mr. Attorney, Mr. Mayor, somewhere there needs to be some
strengthening in what protects this whole thing. I think the monitorship from the citizens
committee, that may be good, but I’m thinking to a point that if you’ve had a situation
where a state agency has done a shutdown, and then we do the taking on of how then it’s
going to be reopened, monitored and everything else, and then by our own admission to
sit here and say we don’t have the level to decide whether or not we are being fair to
residents or being fair to the business owner. I think that’s a little bit much to deal with,
with a one page document and say okay, fine, everything is over with, in order to do it.
Mr. Mayor: We could, what we could do is entertain a motion to table this item
to give the folks the chance to meet with our attorney and see if these concerns can be
resolved this afternoon. If not, we could carry it over to the next meeting and give folks
more time to explore this. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that’s a good suggestion, but what happen when the
other residents who not here today comes back or come to this meeting and says that they
39
agree [inaudible] I think we ought to maybe get the neighborhood or the neighborhood
association to get with the homeowners. I mean everybody need to meet if we going to
talk, I believe. I think that’s a good suggestion, but what happens to those people who
are not here, cause I was thinking at Planning & Zoning that the neighborhood was
represented by their spokesperson for the neighborhood. These constituents here, who
didn’t know anything about it and wasn’t a part of it and do not agree with what’s been
said. So –
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to postpone this to the next
meeting? Give them two weeks to get together?
Mr. Williams: I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to postpone this item for two weeks. Yes, sir?
Mr. Brown: May I make a comment? Today we’re asking for a special
exemption just to compost. Not compost paunch manure. Because even once we get
your exception, we still have to satisfy DNR. DNR in their letter says this is one step
you’ve got to go through.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the item before the Commission says special exception for
composting paunch manure. That’s what it says here.
Mr. Brown: Right. But the thing about it –
Mr. Mayor: That’s what it says here.
Mr. Brown: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Didn’t we originally have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: He made a substitute motion. From Mr. Williams. To postpone it
for two weeks.
Mr. Brown: And one thing else, too, we’ve been doing some test trials for the last
month-and-a-half, and nobody has smelled us.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brown: to show that we could do it right.
40
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? We’ll take up the substitute
motion first, which is to postpone this until our next meeting, to give the neighborhood
and the business folks a chance to meet. Mr. Patty, would you facilitate that meeting for
them? Mr. Shepard, you might want to have somebody from the legal office there, too, to
represent our interests in that. All in favor of the – yes, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: One thing, I’d like to see some of the other communities in that area
included when you meet.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual
sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a retirement on here you had some people
here for?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, item 48.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Old ex-fireman who done been around the world, I believe, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know about ex-fireman. Once a fireman, always a fireman.
Mr. Williams: Yes, you got that right.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption on item 48, please.
The Clerk:
48. Approve disability retirement of Mr. Steve Boykin under the 1977 Pension
Plan.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
41
Mr. Mays: I’d like to know if that gentleman has anything during the daytime
that he can do other than worry Ms. Margaret Boykin.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: If he doesn’t have a reason to be able to do that, then I don’t think we
ought to let him retire. I had a call from her on the cell phone. She told me to find
something else for you to do, other than to bother her, so if you don’t have anything else
to do in the daytime, you may not get out of [inaudible].
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have been here for two hours. We’ll take a five minute recess
and then come back and resume our deliberations.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move ahead with item number 3 on our agenda,
please. Item number 3.
The Clerk:
3 Z-04-85 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the area to be granted
the Special Exception be reduced to 0.5 acre at the northwest corner of the property as
shown on a diagram in the file and 2) that the subject area be surrounded by a 6 foot
solid fence; a petition by Thomas E. Bradford requesting a Special Exception to
reestablish a former salvage yard in an HI (Heavy Industry) Zone, per Section 24-2
(16) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 3825 Peach Orchard Road and containing
approximately 2.61 acres. (Tax Map 180 Parcel 14.01) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked this item be pulled?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. We’ve just cleaned up one of the worst eyesores in
the city of Augusta by cleaning up that spot. I am not interested in seeing a junkyard re-
established on that major corridor. I have no problem with businesses, repair centers or
anything else as long as it maintains an aesthetically-pleasing appearance. I guess my
42
question for the petitioner is what exactly do we plan to put in here? And if it’s another
junkyard, I’m going to make a motion that we deny this.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today for this item? You’re not the petitioner,
are you, Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: I’m not. I am not.
Mr. Mayor: You want to try and speak for him?
Mr. Patty: I will speak for him. I will tell you what he told us at our meeting.
This is – actually, this is the old [inaudible] junkyard. Been cleaned up. For the most
part. There are a couple of buildings left, and this petitioner wants to use it to repair,
clean and fix trucks, and in the process of doing that, he testified to us that he would have
a very small, minimal amount of salvage, truck parts and that sort of thing. And we told
him it’s not going to get approved. He said what if we limit it to half an acre in the back
corner of it with a six foot fence around it and all that. And there were no objectors and
that’s the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
It just sounds like a good deal of “he plans to” and “will do” and I
know the petitioner. I have no problem with him operating a repair shop. I just for the
life of my don’t want to see a salvage yard reappear where we just cleaned up those
thousands of tires and junk and – a solid fence, I’d like to see a really nice privacy type
fence, some specifics as to the type of material and so forth. We had a tin-roof, tin fence
used before painted in multi-colors, must of rust. Our staff has done a great job of
cleaning that up, and I just don’t want to see it come back. I have no problem with a
business that does repair work and certainly there will be with repairs some vehicles that
will be on the lot for limited periods of time, but we don’t need to go back with this. And
I’d like to defer this to the next meeting and have the
if we need to, Mr. Mayor,
petitioner come down perhaps and talk with us about his plans and I’m going to
make that in the form of a motion. Delay this till the next meeting and have the
petitioner come down and talk about it.
Mr. Hankerson: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Discussion on the motion? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I certainly agree with Commissioner
Cheek. We’ve got to put something together for those areas that’s been blighted and
been bringing the community down, such as the old [inaudible] junkyard that was
[inaudible] for years and years and years. And allowed people to put those cars and that
kind of equipment out. We ought to have some kind of beautification plan that will go
along with this in order to, to put some light where the darkness has been for a long time.
43
If you allow these same businesses to come back and open up in the same manner as they
was opening in the beginning then history is going to repeat itself. So I agree with
Commissioner Cheek but there ought to be some way that we ought to be able to put
something together where these businesses would have to come in and not just plant
trees. Trees are nice. But there ought to be some beautification, there ought to be
something to make a difference to where these old properties has been for many years
and been a sore eye. Something ought to be just the opposite of beautification go in so
people would say well, hey, you know, we’re not doing business as usual, we are
changing the face of the community where it has been a putdown for many, many years
for those residents. I think once we get an ordinance, Steve, if that’s in order, if that’s
something we can do to come up with a beautification plan when they take a junkyard
such as that one and reopen it to some magnitude, we have let hundreds open, Mr. Mayor,
and they, in 30 days or less we had a tree ordinance in place. We ask people to plant
trees and they really don’t do it. I can show you at least three businesses that have
promised us and the guidelines say that they will put trees in place, they are not in place.
We’ve got to get aggressive and maybe do some beautification. Now where Augusta
come with the garden city name from, I really don’t know unless you come in from
another side of town. But if you come in through south Augusta, Jimmy Smith, we need
to change that sign. Now we can do something about it. We can put an ordinance in
place where people would not just plant trees but some kind of beautification need to be
necessary when we change those areas and put those people in business again to set up,
Mr. Mayor. That’s the comment I wanted to make and I probably make it again in a few
minutes but I wanted to make that in behalf of what Commissioner Cheek has just said.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to defer this until our next meeting.
All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, is item number 5.
The Clerk:
5. Z-04-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph M. Norris requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 2200 Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd. and
containing .40 acres. (Tax Map 72-1 Parcel 141) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
44
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is another situation similar to the
one we just spoke about. The petitioner is here and I got a call on yesterday that there
wasn’t a sign. That neighbors called to ask about where the sign was located for the
rezoning. So I rode out on yesterday to look at it, and when I got there I didn’t see the
sign. The sign had been taken off the door. Within his rights. They had every right to
take it off the door. They had been issued a license already and the building had not been
approved by this board. So I put in a call to Rob Sherman, talked with Larry Harris.
They went out and I think made some [inaudible] the license. This is a business that was
brought to Planning & Zoning that I sit on and I explained to the petitioner then that I was
not fighting them. This is a area that’s in really bad shape from anything you can name
on a negative side, from EPD to License & Inspection to every rule that you could
possibly break as far as zoning and stuff is in this area, Mr. Mayor. I’m not fighting this
petitioner. What I’d like to do is to reiterate again that we need to come up with
something where these businesses come in that will beautify, make a difference, and not
just plant trees but do something that’s going to be able to enhance, and not just do it for
initial opening, but to maintain that people can see that something good is coming in
If I can make a motion that we
rather than something that’s been there for 200 years.
hold this for the next Commission meeting to give me time to get with the neighbors
and also get with this petitioner to understand or to come up with what we can do or
what they would help do to beautify this area.
This is a really, really bad area. I don’t
know how many people witness a drive-by shooting in your life, but I can tell you the
establishment next door to this one ha plenty of drive-by shooting. It’s changed, now.
The old 2160 Club is not there anymore, but there is a take-out restaurant, a Korean
restaurant, I believe. Alcoholic beverages being sold. They applied for another license.
They been in there doing work that they has not got permission to do. This is a bad, bad
area. The residents are tire. The residents are sick. I got pictures of the adjacent
junkyard that’s adjacent to it. Across the street there is a car wash that drug activity is
being transacted 24 hours a day. Prostitution up and down the street. It’s a bad area. I
cannot sit here and let that continue to grow and grow and grow and not address it. I
believe, Mr. Mayor, if we shine some light, that we beautify, if we change the area, we let
the people know that the people that’s come in there that do care about the area. We was
told in Planning & Zoning that there wouldn’t be any cars left on the premises. Well,
there’s eight cars on the premises now. I got my camera but I don’t have my film
developed. I guess it’s not doing very much good. But I did not out, Mr. Mayor, I did
look at it, I did get License & Inspection to come out as well. And there is a serious
problem in License & Inspection. Larry, I know you’re in the back, back there, but
somebody need to address these issue. This, this mistake that happened before where we
issued a tag or issued a license to businesses and it’s unfair to these businesses that come
in and take those license back from them after somebody in our government made a
mistake and issued it to them. That should have never happened. I said it yesterday, I’m
going to say it again today. Folks make a lot more money than I make, Mr. Mayor, and I
believe in holding people accountable. If you get paid to do a job, somebody need to do
the job. And if those are not doing the job, we need to – there a lot of people looking for
in the form of a motion, Mr.
work so we need to hire somebody that will do it. So
Mayor, I’d like to hold this for two weeks to give us time to get with the business
owner, get with the residents, come up with something we can do to make this area
45
look presentable or even better than it did look before. Not just as normal, because
it’s an unsightly area, it’s really bad.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second. Mr. Patty, you can facilitate that
meeting, couldn’t you? You could handle that? Okay. Any discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Are we going to hear from the petitioner?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll give him the opportunity. Anything from the other
Commissioners? Okay, Mr. Dent?
Mr. Dent: Mr. Mayor, we don’t disagree with Mr. Williams. He has discussed
this with us and we understand what his concerns are and we’re happy to cooperate with
him and the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Dent: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Next item is, I believe, number 10, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
10. Z-04-94 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) the development be
limited to 7 units and 2) that there be no access to the existing Summerchase
neighborhood; a petition by Michael Melugin, on behalf of Louis P. Gangarosa, Sr.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
1C (One-family Residential) with a Special Exception to allow commonwall
townhomes not to exceed 7 units per acre, per Section 11-2 (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located 245
feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road and
being 1,360 feet, more or less, west of Damascus Road and containing 1.0 acre. (Tax
Map 42-4 Parcel 15) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you asked this one be pulled?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I asked for it to be pulled. I, I’ve got some calls from
some of my constituents and residents that live in the adjacent area. I could not give
them any answers. I just have some concerns about the development going on and I
don’t even know what’s going there. If the developer is here, I can see some kind of
46
designs, what scale apartments are going up in the area. These are the questions that I
been getting calls on.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Are there any objectors, any people
from the neighborhood here? You want to defer this for two weeks, Mr. Hankerson, and
let’s get –
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, maybe by that time – thank you, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: By that time the developer could give me a call and discuss it
with me so I’ll know what he’s putting there, what kind of apartments.
Mr. Mayor: You
Mr. Patty, can you facilitate that for Mr. Hankerson? Okay.
want to make a motion then to defer this to the next meeting?
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty going to have his hands full, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: He’s going to be busy.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next, I believe, is 28.
The Clerk:
28. Motion to approve exempting Long Item Development Corporation 2004
Property Tax Bill No. 2004-366013 up to one-third of Freeport. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 11, 2004)
The Clerk: Mr. Reece asked that the wording be changed to “abating.”
Mr. Mayor: To abate?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham, you asked this be pulled?
47
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. And I was not here during
our Finance meeting last week and I’m not questioning what’s put on the consent, but
after I read the information of the backup from the Finance Committee, then I did find
out that this is a Freeport exemption. Based on qualifications that we ask companies to
come in and start businesses and to establish a Freeport existence for us, in creating jobs.
And that has happened. And I find that this is some very unusual circumstances that was
mentioned in the backup information of the Finance Committee meeting Monday. Mr.
Fox is here, and he’s involved somewhat with this Long Item Development Corporation
and I’d like for him to go over that. I’m not saying that we didn’t do right in allowing a
third of this Freeport tax, but I do think under the circumstances we should look at
abating 100% of it in a case where this was no cause of theirs at all and I’d like for him to
at least give us that information.
Mr. Mayor: Dick, give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Fox: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. It’s always good to come
here and visit you folks. I am here representing LID Corporation today. We are granted
Freeport because we are a reshipping buying group. We buy products in large quantities,
we break them down at Easter Seals and reship all over the country, but at the end of the
year we always have some inventory on hand. Therefore, we have an exemption for
Freeport for anything that is not destined for Georgia delivery [inaudible] tax for
inventory. Nothing for operations, now, but our inventory property tax is reduced by the
amount that we have ordered to go out of state. And this year, we had a dispute with our
accountant. We had our annual meeting in February. We were in the annual meeting in
February in Atlanta and several of the board members were very disappointed with the
work of our local accountant from Augusta, Georgia, or from Evans, Georgia, and he was
fired on the spot. This created some problems. I got back to Augusta to hire another
accountant, and I did that. However, the first thing they did was notify everybody to get
an extension so they could become familiar with the operations of LID Corporation.
Then come to find out, the accountants that we had dismissed had done something with
the Freeport application. We don’t know what happened to it, but we never saw it.
Therefore, it missed the April 1 deadline and that deadline, you’re never notified that you
missed the deadline to make a timely appeal. You don’t know anything until you get
your tax bill. This tax bill [inaudible] difference of $10,000 in the inventory tax of this
[inaudible]. Without going into great detail, this is a warehouse that is owned by 34
stockholders nationwide. The people from California have been agitating for a long time
[inaudible] but I’ve been able to keep them in Augusta, Georgia for three reasons.
Number one, I’m the chairman of the board and I look over it, look after it. Number two,
we operate out of the Easter Seals facility here and use Easter Seals handicapped workers
to repackage material. And number three, we get a Freeport exemption for the material
coming through. So I don’t want to go to the board meeting in February and say that due
to some negligence or some unfortunate circumstance, we lost the $10,000 that we’re
entitled to from our arrangement through having Freeport.
Mr. Mayor: Sonny, is there a recommendation from the tax office? I guess this is
something they’ve had every year up until this year when it wasn’t filed; is that correct?
48
Mr. Reece: That’s correct, sir. And the board of assessors does not have any
authority to grant any kind of extension. I met with Mr. Fox. He explained all the
information to me that he’s just expressed to you. And I told him the only thing he could
do was go to the Commission and ask for an abatement. Just mention in Finance
Committee meeting that these monies are already set aside in your budget and if you, you
can do it, there has been precedence been made on two other industries, similar
circumstances. And at the Finance Committee meeting, you could do a third, a half, all,
or none. But as far as any recommendation, we don’t have any.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you have a motion?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, thank you, I’d like to make a motion that we
abate the Freeport tax of 100% that is normally due to the LID Corporation.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on that?
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’d like to know how much is that [inaudible] I mean we
dealing [inaudible] in finance. I agree with everybody was stated with the three reasons
for having it in Augusta. Somebody dropped the ball somewhere and they, they do that
quite often. But how much is that that we be abating, Sonny?
Mr. Reece: Just a little over $10,000.
Mr. Williams: And we agreed in finance to do a third?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion that we abate
half of it for them to – I may not get a second on that but I’m going to make that
substitute motion that we abate half of the [inaudible] tax.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. This is money that we have never gotten
before because you’ve gotten the Freeport exemption every year?
Mr. Fox: Right.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s not like we’re losing anything. Is that a correct assessment?
49
Mr. Fox: Yes, this is true, Mr. Mayo. And I can, I can say – I can’t speak for the
board of LID Corporation, but there are five jobs at stake.
Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mayor, give me a clarification again. What this is, this is
money they would have paid had they not had the Freeport in the past years? And
because they didn’t file on time or didn’t bring that back in time, Sonny, is the reason it’s
up here now; is that right?
Mr. Reece: That’s correct, sir. They’ve been exempt from that portion of the
Freeport for every year that they filed it in a timely manner.
Mr. Williams: And because of the Freeport, non-profit, is that –
Mr. Reece: Has nothing to do with it, sir. They’re not non-profit. This company
is a profit company. Freeport is, Freeport is an exemption on finished goods being
shipped outside of the state. And any industries that produces a product and ships it out
of the state qualifies for Freeport.
Mr. Williams: Okay. My motion stands.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, the point I find that is of
great interest to us is the, is the assistance that this company does get, not only from our
government granting a Freeport tax, but it works with Easter Seals, and Easter Seals is
certainly an area that everyone is familiar with, and if we’re helping those people with
creating jobs where they are getting paid by this company, then that’s the purpose of our
granting these Freeport taxes, plus the fact that the products are shipped out of the state.
And I just, I just feel like that unbeknowing to them, when everything fell through the
cracks, that we don’t penalize a company because they have come in and requested the
similar treatment they’ve been getting in the past and they had a problem, here to admit
that problem, and certainly to continue to work an effort that they are doing, and I just, I
feel like we need to abate this. We’ve already set a precedence, as Mr. Reece has said,
with two other companies. And I feel like it would be important for this particular
company that we do the same for them.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll take up the substitute motion first, and
that’s the motion that would abate half of the tax. All in favor of that, please vote with
the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr.
Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 1-7-1.
50
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. We’ll go ahead and vote
on that. All in favor of the original motion for 100% abatement, please vote with the
usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Fox: Thank you to the Commissioners, all of you. I appreciate your support.
I think this is a nice $4 million business that will continue to operate and continue to
employ five people in Augusta, Georgia, in support of the Easter Seals Society. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Now your new accountant is familiar with Freeport?
Mr. Fox: That’s right. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Next item is item 36, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
36. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $16,729.55 for the
Augusta Canal Multiuse Trail. (Approved by Engineering Service Committee
October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wasn’t privileged to be in the Engineering
Services Committee on committee today [inaudible] two meetings at the same time. This
change order, and my friend, Richard Colclough, had a deal with these change orders,
and I’m just a little concerned about how much money we’ve got left in the sales tax,
yeah, sales tax money for Phase III, I believe it is, and [inaudible] being matched, and I
think that’s what it says in the background. My question is how much money? Can we
get a report back? And how much money there is in this account for the Canal Authority
for sales tax Phase III?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, do you have that information available?
Mr. Russell: I do not have it available now but I can get it for the Commissioner.
Mr. Williams:I make a motion
I would certainly appreciate it, Mr. Mayor, and
that we approve it but I’d certainly like to get that information back to know how
much money.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
51
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor,
please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Item 38?
Mr. Mayor: 38.
The Clerk:
38. Motion to approve the continuation of contract for Greenspace services
between Augusta and the Savannah River Land Trust. (Approved by Engineering
Service Committee October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I’d like to get some information.
I’ve got no problem with continuing this contract, but I need to know what have we done,
what have we got so far? Greenspace monies, Greenspace land that we purchased, where
we are. We renewing contracts, we keeping the same contractor. But I need some kind
of update report, Mr. Shepard, I guess is a good word. Where we are with the
Greenspace and what we intending to do, how much long, where we are.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, I’ll ask Mr. Patty to join in in case
supplementation might be required. But this program that [inaudible] I think they’ve
spent every dime of the money that’s supposed to come down here. They were
successful in acquiring many properties in the Butler Creek corridor. That was a priority
of this group, I mean of the Commission, they directed them to focus on that. It was
through the use of Greenspace that the property that belonged to Jimmy Davison at the
corner of Berckman Road and Ingleside, which was a prime area that was visible, that
was also purchased on terms that were fairly favorable to the county. I think Mr. Davison
had been down here many, many times wanting a lot more for the property. So those are
some of the successes that this contractor has achieved. And I know they ran out of
money. Don’t know if there will be any other Greenspace money, but George, you
[inaudible] a little closer than I did, but those are my observations, Mr. Williams, about
that contract.
Mr. Patty: We entered this contract in 2001. It’s a $55,000 a year contract. And
we got a total of $1.1 million from the state. These were funds that were earmarked for
Richmond County and their Greenspace grant program. That program was not funded in
2002, was not funded in 2003, excuse me, or 2004. And the funds that we were granted
as an allocation have been utilized. Probably the only county in Georgia that did what we
did. There are no more direct allocation monies but there’s rumor that there will be
additional funds released and that these funds will be on a competitive basis and just
52
don’t know at this point. There are other things that they can do for us. They secured a
couple of grants from Fish and Wildlife Service to do various things on Butler Creek.
Mr. Williams: So George, is that why we continue this contract? Cause I heard
that there is no funds, there is no money? Is that why we continue the contract with this
service is because of the grant that they able to acquire for this government? I mean
cause, I mean I know this not a [inaudible] we wouldn’t be renewing it, it would be
automatic if it was [inaudible]. So [inaudible] on this. Is that why we –
Mr. Patty: This contract, the terms of this contract are that it automatically
renews if it’s not, if it’s not, if notice is not given within 60 days of the first of a calendar
year, which I guess is November 1. And I felt like I had to put this on the agenda to let
you all decide what to do with it, given the circumstances. So I’m responsible for it
being here. Well, actually, Fred’s responsible for it because of the pep talk he gave us at
the staff meeting about saving money.
Mr. Russell: [inaudible]
Mr. Patty: So I felt like y’all needed to know about this. I think they provide
services. I think they have done a lot of good for us. But it is what it is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if I could say this, too, that they principally were set
up as a partnership with the city because the state set up the Greenspace program. But to
say that we’re out of money doesn’t say that we’re out of the program. Yes, we don’t
have any state money right now, but the land trust continues to work with private
landholders to secure conservation easements, which don’t cost us any money. They’re
working on grants from other federal agencies and private sources, which is new money,
that would come in. So there is an ongoing mission for this organization to work with us
and certainly if we were to try to do this in-house, we couldn’t get the value and expertise
that we get by doing it with the Land Trust and the tremendous volunteer and donor base
that they’ve been able to develop. So it’s a great value for us to continue this
relationship, and we trust the Legislature is going to return once the State gets solvent
again and returns to putting money into the Greenspace program. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to just follow along with what you said. We
have established [inaudible] Commission the finest Greenspace program in the state of
Georgia. A model for others to follow. I wanted to add to this that this is an important
contract. They’re doing exactly what you said. They’re acquiring properties in flood-
prone areas through means other than direct funding. We own most of Butler Creek now,
which was set up to be the first area, target area for us in our Greenspace program, which
has taken many, many hundreds of acres of swampland out of developmental danger,
which would have had us buying hundreds of homes in the future perhaps in flood-prone
areas. I would like to see at some point in the future if state funding is restored us go
from Butler Creek to Rocky Creek or Raes Creek or [inaudible] Creek. Any of the other
creek basins. And do the same thing. Make that a target instead of willy-nilly spending
it on Uncle Joe’s farmland or whatever else this city traditionally has done in the past.
53
That we target areas and then we work towards achieving the purchase of those entire
creek basins to create Greenspace like they have in North Augusta with their trails, to
take the properties out of danger for development and creating more flood-prone houses.
But this is an excellent program, and again recognizes one of the best in the state, and if
you ever get a chance to go along Butler Creek in the areas that the City now owns, and
again if sales tax passes we will be able to fund the creation of a Greenspace very similar
to what they have in North Augusta, which is a nationally-recognized Greenspace. But
we’ll be able to build that along Butler Creek on some of the most beautiful land in the
state, which is in a highly-developed area, and you’d never know it by walking along the
creek. It’s beautiful down there. They’ve done a good job. We need to pass this.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a follow-up question.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: If this program is not funded, what commitment do we have or
where are the funds coming from. If not funded – I heard you say the state – if they, the
Legislators don’t fund it or we don’t get the funding, is there a commitment, a budget
commitment for 2005 for this if it’s not funded?
Mr. Mayor: Well, the State funding is just one element of the Greenspace
program.
Mr. Hankerson: My question is what commitment [inaudible] City funding? We
going to have to fund this?
Mr. Mayor: We have not funded it yet beyond the value of the contract with the
Land Trust. That’s been our contribution to the Greenspace program for the last three
years and that’s been the extent of that. Now if at some point the Commission would like
to put some capital outlay money into acquiring properties for Greenspace protection or
SPLOST money or whatever, certainly the City can do that. But there’s no requirement
on the City to appropriate any monies beyond the money that is required for the
performance of the contract with the Savannah River Land Trust. And that’s the same
level that it has been for the last three years.
Mr. Hankerson: $50,000?
Mr. Mayor: $55,000 I think it is. $55,000. That’s the extent of our commitment.
Mr. Hankerson: What funds are the $55,000 coming out of? Capital outlay?
What funds that does come out of?
54
Mr. Mayor: General fund.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s what I was thinking. So we approve this contract today,
then that mean that we’re saying that we’re going to support it in the general fund?
Mr. Mayor: As we have the past three years.
Mr. Hankerson: Don’t we think this is a little immature with this lecture that I
heard from the Administrator where we’re going to be and what we are going to have to
cut for next year? I just, I got a problem with that of committing to the funds now and
not knowing what we are going to look at. I got a problem with that, you know, this
funding, which is an excellent program, but we are going to have to cut some excellent
programs next year or next week or week after next. We are going to have to cut some
excellent programs. The second problem that I have with this is this Greenspace is
evergreen. This is another evergreen contract, so when I see evergreen contracts, I’m
going to try to get rid of them. [inaudible] feel about the evergreens, automatic renews.
We need to look at them as they come up and more and more of them are coming up. I’d
like for us to take into consideration of maybe the Attorney need to work on the
evergreen part. Maybe some that we are going to support, but in the words of
Commissioner Williams, the back to the wall type situation exists where we got these
evergreens and got 60 days to renew or they automatically renew. So I have a problem
with that and I think we need to consider of how we are going to fund it or do we have
time now to hold off to budget time to say that we can include this contract in the budget?
Mr. Mayor: You could, Mr. Hankerson. There is that provision within the
contract, though, where it requires a 60 day notification, and perhaps we can engage the
Land Trust to waive that 60 day requirement and then just take this up as part of our
budget consideration. I’m sure they’d go along with that. They’ve been very good to
work with.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a comment. In talking to Mr.
Copenhaver, Deke Copenhaver, who is in charge of the Savannah Land Trust for us, and
he has, he says that with our participation, and I know $55,000 can mean a lot to our
budget, but our participation of $55,000 allows him to go to the State and go to other
sources of funds in order to get over $1 million in order to help provide for the
Greenspace program that we have incorporated here in this city and as Commissioner
Cheek mentioned, you know, we are now the picture of what other cities, the other people
want to do, as far as Greenspace goes. Now that’s not to say that we are going to need to
continue forever, but I do think that it’s something that we have started a good program
with and if we needed to continue to move forward in this direction until we come to a
conclusion on this thing. And I’m not opposed to holding off right now and I’m sure Mr.
Copenhaver would work with us. But I just wanted to let you know that the $55,000 that
55
we give to the Savannah Land Trust enables them to go out for grants and other
assistance. It brings in over $1 million that works toward our Greenspace program.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The other point I’d like to bring out, too,
is that the Greenspace program is a good program. The Land Trust is, has done a great
job. But when I think about flood-prone areas and the only land I see we bought is in the
green areas, it’s not in the floor-prone areas and some other parts of this city as well, we
been talking about the creeks and I know we bought a lot of property along the creeks
that we need to get to beautify. But there are some flood-prone areas that we have not
even never looked at yet, that been flooding in this town ever since this town been a
town. And I don’t know nothing about it. I just know that I got people who are still
suffering. I still see those boats in some folks’ driveways with the car parked next to it in
case they can’t get out. So we need to look at flood-prone areas as well when we talk
about buying up properties that’s, that’s there. So I mean we been doing this for three
years now, Mr. Mayor. And I know it takes time. But we need to go both sides of the
river when we buying, when we looking, when we changing, when we upgrading. I just
mentioned that earlier about the areas that been suffering for long and still looking the
same way. So we need to share some green over there in grass and in dollars so we be
able to help those areas.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell
: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commission Williams
and Commission Hankerson are asking the same questions I asked several weeks ago
when Mr. Patty brought this forth to me. If there is no funding available, why should we
continue the grant, why should we continue this project, can we wait a while to determine
whether or not we want to fund it in next year’s budget? The reason it is here is because
What I might suggest is some language that would
of the deadline of November 1.
allow us to notify them that we’re not going to continue the current contract as is
and we can notify them of that prior to November 1, but that you allow us to work
through the budget process and develop an additional contract without the
evergreen clause in it. I was sold on the program, both Mr. Patty and Mr.
Copenhaver explained to me what a good thing this does, I think it’s something we
need to continue to look at. I would not be opposed to terminating this contract,
letting them know that but still working towards an additional contract as we work
through the budget process itself and could have something in place January 1.
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion
then please vote with the usual sign.
56
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us, I believe next item, 42. We’ll get back in the zoning
business.
The Clerk:
42. Z-04-86 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Frances R. Perrin, on behalf of Frances
and John Perrin, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care
Home, per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 1245 Augusta Avenue and contains
.17 acres. (Tax Map 46-3 Parcel 246) DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Can you give us some background on this?
Mr. Patty: This is a big, two-story house that has had some renovation.
[inaudible] very near the new stadium location. We had applicant – let’s see, applicant
wants to do a family personal care home, I believe. It doesn’t actually say that on here.
Yeah, family personal care home, which would allow them to keep up to six unrelated
individual there. Stated it would be a staff-operated care home. There were objectors at
the meeting. Neighborhood association, the Laney Walker Neighborhood Association
was there in opposition to it. They gave us a petition with three pages of objectors and
the Planning Commission denied it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Perrin: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any people from the neighborhood who object to this who
are present today? Okay, none are noted. This is Frances and John Perrin? Okay.
Mr. Larke: I’m Leon Larke, their attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Who is going to speak, the attorney?
Mr. Larke: Both.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that’s fine. That’s fine. If y’all would like to tell us your
story, go ahead. Try and speak into the microphone, if you could. We’ve had at least one
Commissioner up here that needs [inaudible] PA system.
Mr. Larke: I was not at the original meeting, but my understanding is that of
course there was a concern about the petition that was presented, and again, we, we have
a petition – I don’t know how many names were on that one, but we have a petition that
57
has been signed by people from the neighborhood and there are 74 names here. I’d like
to offer this for information purposes. Aside from the petition, I heard it just expressed
that well, this family personal care home will be near the proposed stadium. Well, there
are a lot of other buildings there that will be near the proposed stadium. And from what I
gather from talking to Ms. Perrin and her husband, aside from the petition there was a
concern about whether this vacant facility, or vacant home now, would – this is a two-
story – whether it would be conducive to having wheelchairs, that type of thing. And –
but the type of home that will be there is an assisted living home. There is no intent at all
to have wheelchairs, that type thing. But of course other than to make it accessible on the
first level. But it will be an assisted living home with the individuals there who – some
may have some mental challenges, but that concern, we don’t think should prohibit the
granting of this exception they’re asking. There will be six people there. We really were
kind of puzzled as to exactly why it was that this, this particular request for this exception
was denied. But I don’t think that creates any presumption as far as what this
Commission can do. And what we’re asking the Commission to do is to grant it, to grant
this exception. This facility will be staffed full time. There will be certified care workers
there. All of the requirements that otherwise would be required will be met. I looked at
the principal provision here, which is 1-H, which is about family personal care homes
here in the Planning & Zoning ordinance. Again, it appears to me that every
consideration, the pre-requisites would have been met, and we are asking that this
exception be allowed.
Ms. Perrin: At the meeting there was some concern about the building being two
stories. And like attorney Larke said, we did not anticipate taking any wheelchair or
walkers. The State would allow us to interview the residents before we would accept
them. And too, it has to be approved by them, also. I spoke with the neighbors after the
petition was granted, you know, presented to you, and they were under the impression
that people would be moving in and out. The association had informed them that the
people would be moving in and out, which was not true. And also, they were concerned
because the property previously had been rental property and they felt was posing a
problem with people moving in and out of their community. A couple said that there
have been drug activity, which I was unaware of. And I also asked them to let me attend
their meetings so that we can all address these issues. But I petition that you would
reconsider this petition and grant it.
Mr. Larke: I think there also was a concern that parking wouldn’t be adequate,
but again, viewing the area of this home, there would be adequate spaces. Well, in the
back yard. We could get at least six cars there without any problem. And again, we just
don’t know what the real problem was.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to turn it back over to the Mayor. Commissioner
Williams. It’s back in your hands, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
58
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I sit on Planning & Zoning. I was there when the
couple came in to apply and the neighborhood, the Laney Walker Neighborhood
Association president, Stanley Hawes, came in with the petition, with disagreement as to
approving this. What was mentioned in that meeting and I kind of agreed with was the
traffic, the two story home that it was proposing to have a personal care home. The
traffic on Augusta Avenue. There is a serious problem now, Wrightsboro Road and
Augusta Avenue, with the parking and people coming on that end. It’s, I don’t have a
dog in this hunt. I mean it’s not mine, it’s not my district. I just wanted to reiterate that I
was at Planning & Zoning, that the Laney Walker Neighborhood Association did come
down and did speak against the personal care home being in that area. I do know that
there is a need, but when you look at a two story facility, I do have some major concerns
about how can you operate a personal care home that’s going to be a two-story event,
two-story facility, when you talking about personal care, people needing assistance.
They not going to be just, I guess in my mind live-in people. These are going to be
people with special needs. Special needs, whether they – and I think the attorney
mentioned maybe some mental. If they, whatever capacity, whatever needs they are to
go up and down these stairs and have the parking facility, I think is going to pose a
problem in that particular location. I’m reiterating what was said, what was brought up at
Planning & Zoning because I was there. The neighborhood did speak against it.
Planning & Zoning denied it and sent it to final decision to be made here at this board,
but I just wanted to reiterate that, Mr. Mayor, what I witnessed and heard there.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I would like to add to that, that the president of the association also
talked with me, and they are concerned, because they are concerned in reference to what
has been happening in that house in the past. And they just really feel the elderly will not
get good care there.
Mr. Larke: Well, if I might?
Ms. Beard: Yes?
Mr. Larke: I certainly understand their concerns, but their concerns with regard to
past activity certainly would not have any, any carryover effect with regard to the Perrins,
who have been business people in this community for over 20 years, and with exceptional
reputations, irrespective of what the past concerns may have been.
Ms. Beard: That is what they mentioned to me.
Mr. Larke: I understand.
Ms. Beard: And it caused me, you know, to be concerned because I am
concerned about our seniors. And they also talked of the other citizens, because I
understand that it’s really a fairly nice neighborhood except for this particular house that
has given that neighborhood problems over the years.
59
Mr. Mayor: How long have the Perrins owned the house in question?
Ms. Perrin: We have owned that home for ten years, and we have never –
Mr. Mayor: What was the previous use of the –
Ms. Perrin: It was a lease. We were renting it out. And we have never had any –
Mr. Mayor: Did you rent it out as a single-family residence or boarding house?
What was the use?
Ms. Perrin: Single-family residence. We have never received any complaints.
This is the first time we have had any complaints given to us regarding the prior live-ins,
and that’s the reason that we decided to change it, because we don’t live with the people
and we try to screen them, but it’s kind of hard to know what they’re doing. If they had
notified me before times, maybe I would have known what was going on in the house.
But I rest assure you that once we learned about these activities, we evicted these ones.
We did not go on, you know, to continue putting up with it.
Ms. Beard: And my understanding is you will not be working, be part of the
work, that you will be hiring people to take care of these people?
Ms. Perrin: They will be certified people. Now I will not live in the place at
night, but I will be a part of the care. A very strong part of the care.
Mr. Mayor: If your request is denied by the Commission, what do you intend to
do with the house?
Ms. Perrin: Well, we will go back to leasing it out. And I was trying to avoid
having to irritate the neighbors with it. I’m concerned, I respect the elderly, too. I have
parents that are elderly.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Perrin?
Mr. Perrin: This would eliminate a lot of problems for everyone, to eliminate the
problem that the people in the neighborhood worrying about anybody and everybody
coming in the neighborhood, visiting the people that were in the house. Which we have
the people in the house, it’s not going to be where [inaudible] personal care home. This
is a regular home where you go in. People stay in. And they have the normal care, just
someone to attend them. To help to assist them in some of the things that they can’t
normally do on their daily lives. It’s not going to be a disability facility. It’s going to be
a care facility.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion at some point to do something here. Mr. Mays?
60
Mr. Mays: Yeah, let me just ask this, Mr. Mayor. I guess either to Mr. or Ms.
Perrin. Prior to the Planning & Zoning meeting or even afterward, has there been any
conversation or dialogue with the neighborhood association, either going in or even since
the zoning meeting?
Ms. Perrin: Well, I had the privilege of speaking with some of the neighbors right
after the petition had been presented and some of these was on that board and they
directed me to someone in the neighborhood to speak to, because I did inform them that I
would like to be a part of that community, since I own property in that community, but I
have not heard anything from them. Like I said, I did not know that they even had a
community like that as far as having someone to represent them, because they never
notified me at all.
Mr. Mays: They have one. They have a pretty active neighborhood association.
And my reason for asking is that obviously the house, unless it was in a deplorable state
or something, obviously the house is going to be there, it’s not going away, and it’s either
going to have to – it’s going to be occupied in some fashion by somebody. Whether it’s
– somebody else buys it, whether you rent it out, or whether this goes in like it is. You
mentioned about [inaudible] the neighbors, I guess what I’m looking at specifically is on
that street, but then again with the neighborhood association, they have their regular
meetings and they are scheduled. It’s one of the more active associations and that’s why
I was wondering if you’d had any conversation with them on an official level since then.
I’m thinking – we’ve had a lot of stuff that’s been put off for two weeks today on the
zoning matters, probably 3 to 4 different ones, and I’m just wondering if – and I would
have to follow the leadership of the sitting Commissioner in that district, and also we’ve
got a Commissioner that sits on Planning & Zoning. I’m wondering if it might be
worthwhile in terms of having conversation, in terms of plans for that home and of
actually sitting down with what they are planning for. They not only, from that end at
Augusta Avenue, but all the way back down to Twiggs Street area, going over to Walton
Way and then going out to Wrightsboro Road, they’ve pretty much, whether it’s zoning,
whether it’s sales tax, whatever it is, the association has been very active in terms of
having input in what’s there. It may be good that if a conversation, and that’s not say that
the Commission wouldn’t make the same decision that the Planning & Zoning board did,
but I think it would be wise probably if you have, you know, some conversation with
them officially, regardless of what happens with it, because you are a property owner and
you’ve got property there that’s in that official neighborhood, and to say what can maybe
be done in the best mutual interest of everybody there, that might be something that you
would want to do. And that’s just a suggestion. Cause I’m hearing in terms of you
speaking with some people on that street, but obviously you’re going to have a bigger
picture of the situation that’s there. And that might be good if you, if that happens. I
don’t know, it depends on what motion is made, you know, by this, by this body. But
that’s just a suggestion if that’s not already been done. Because I’m sure that the
association as well as residents in that area are interested in whatever happens, that it
becomes a positive situation that’s there. And I think it’s in everybody’s interest that that
happens.
61
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: It would not jeopardize your project to delay it, getting an answer
from the Commission in two weeks, to give you a chance to meet with them.
Mr. Larke: No, it wouldn’t.
Mr. Mayor: To meet with the association.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion then that we postpone this to
give them the opportunity to talk with the Laney Walker Neighborhood Association,
along with the property owners, to see can we come to a happy medium and be able
to make a decision on this piece of property.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Patty, you could facilitate that meeting, add
that to your list? All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then
please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next it item number 43.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
43. Motion to approve contract with Sentinel Offender Services, LLC for State
Court Misdemeanor Cases. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee
October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. This contract
has been –
Mr. Mayor: Speak into the microphone, it’s hard to hear you.
Mr. Shepard: This contract has been up before this body and then it was returned
to, I believe it was the Finance Committee. There was some discussion there and I
pointed out that the contract was drafted, it included an evergreen clause. I said that we
could address that not by redoing the whole contract, we could address it in a more
surgical fashion, which the little memo which I have passed out to you today does. In the
article II conditions, I changed it to read that it would not annually automatically renew
under the terms and conditions that were in the contract. And still during the year, that
62
it’s going to be a one year contract. The contract may be terminated by either party on 30
days’ notice to the other. And I wanted to retain part of that language, and so the second
paragraph of my memo indicates that Sentinel would, in the event of a termination, agree
to cooperate and assist the State Court in any transition to any other provider of probation
services. And finally, there was some discussion that the contract include the additional
flexibility that payments of fines, payments of court costs, payments of restitution which
ordinarily can come by the sentence of the court, through the probation office, that get to
a credit card system for accepting those that Sentinel Services would cooperate. I think it
did come out in the committee below, Mr. Mayor, that the fees had been adjusted. The –
particularly article III, section 1A, there was a $22 per month charge in what’s known as
the “pay only” cases. The more actively supervised cases retain a higher charge as set
forth in the agreement. The alternative to this, members of the Commission, would be
you could negotiate for another provider or the county could step in and reestablish the
probation department. I’ve had several conversations with Mr. Russell about this and the
consensus recommendation, and I join that recommendation, is that we continue for the
next year with Sentinel and that we make it a non-evergreen contract. They have
indicated they have no problem with that. I think their representatives are here to speak if
you wish to hear from any of those individuals.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, let me ask you, if I could, for clarification. You said
they do not accept credit card payments now, and if they accept those that would be at
their discretion at some date in the future? Is that what –
Mr. Shepard: No, no. We are working with the Clerk of Court to establish a
defined payment by credit care system. And they indicated that if that is done in the State
and Superior Court Clerk’s office, they will follow along. They will be consistent with
that policy.
Mr. Mayor: And there would not be an additional fee for using a credit card?
They would not try to recover the credit card fee from the person paying with a credit
card, would they?
Mr. Shepard: I would say we did not specifically discuss that, but I don’t think
they would oppose that. I think every merchant that accepts a credit card does so with the
idea that they’re going to get paid immediately, even though they have a service charge
that varies among the credit card companies. But I don’t think they were looking to pass
through the accepting the credit card to the, to the person who is paying the fine or the
restitution or the court costs.
Mr. Mayor: I think that probably ought to be made clear, because there are so
many things added on to fines now that we don’t need to add on another 5% because you
used a credit card or something like that, so they can recover that, they have to pay the
credit card company.
63
Mr. Shepard: There are many, many surcharges on the various cases now. In
fact, that’s the, as you know, one of the primary ways that the State is financing the
indigent defense office. I can –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I met several times with Sentinel
Offender Services and we talked about the problems that was brought before us with
individuals in the community that was on probation had to pay fines and we did get, as
the attorney stated, and I stated in the Public Safety meeting that one of the fines were
reduced and that’s one step forward from the [inaudible] to the $22. On the credit card,
the credit card was a more convenience type payment, something that was not in place
and as – I saw that as other places do charge for credit cards. I mean they couldn’t bear
the expense of doing that, too, of providing that service. That was something that we
asked to do for individuals that had that option because if they pay by the credit card,
even though the – if there is a fee, they are still, it is still to their advantage because they
are no longer under that supervision, they won’t have to pay that continuous monthly
supervision fee. So that’s still a savings by going that, by just paying it all at one time,
and then when they pay it, the fines, I mean that’s the money that’s coming back to the
City and also for their services, too, so I don’t see a big problem with that fee because
you have an option to use your credit card or you have an option to do it the original way,
just pay month-by-month. That’s just an option if you use the credit card. So I think that
there is a fee for credit card, as well as other businesses charge that fee; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think Judge Hamrick is going to
have as many credit card people appearing before him as we think is going to be there
with a card to do it, and I’m just glad to see that we’re getting something worked out. I
got a call from the Finance Chairman, Commissioner Boyles, who have shared with me
that he was in agreement of the one year contract, that the Judge was in agreement, along
with the company, that he thought it would be good. The attorney have shown some
different language that I agree with as well that we do a one year contract, rather than the
But I wanted to
evergreen contract Commissioner Hankerson was speaking of earlier.
go ahead and make a motion that we approve this with the stipulation that has been
changed for the yearly contract.
If someone from Sentinel want to speak or if the
Judge want to speak, I mean I’ve got no problem with that, either, Mr. Mayor, but I
thought we should go ahead and approve this with those changes of one year agreement.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Judge Hamrick, welcome, do you want to add
anything to the discussion?
Mr. Hamrick: [inaudible] Sentinel can speak for themselves. They’re [inaudible]
64
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else?
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to say this to the Commission. As the meetings
that I’ve had, working on this, and meeting the staff from Sentinel, I – they probably
already know them, but they’re local citizens here, so that they are close to us, not a long
ways off. We’re not 800 or 900 number that we’re calling to get them. So any problems
and questions that come up, cause if you get those calls, and I’m quite sure many of you
receive those calls, you could always clear it up by calling the office and they welcome
you over to show you the operation. I went over and saw the operation and my, my, I
didn’t know so much was going on in such a small looking building. But they know how
to put some offices in some cubicles – some cubicles in a small building. It’s a great
operation over there and I [inaudible] work with them [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to just echo what Commissioner
Hankerson said. They do good work. A lot of people go through there. I was impressed
with what I saw on my trip over there.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor then
of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Item 44.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 44.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
44. Consider a request from Sherman & Hemstreet, LLC for an abatement of
taxes regarding property located at 1812 Slaton Street. (No recommendation from
Finance Committee October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: There is no recommendation from the Finance Committee. What’s
the pleasure of the Commission today?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The backup indicates that the agent for the property owner did not
get the bill, apparently, says did not receive notice the taxes were due, and [inaudible] at
least gotten that.
Mr. Mayor: Are they here?
65
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think anybody is.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t see anything in the backup that exhibited any extenuating
circumstances, like a change in ownership or anything like that. It just said they didn’t
get a bill.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can shed some –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] bill every year.
Mr. Williams: Maybe I can shed some light on this. Mr. Reece came in and said
that the address was changed. They did their part in sending the bill where normally it
should go. And for whatever reason, they moved and they came afterward, I believe he
stated. He’s not here and I hate to speak for him. But in Finance he did say that our
department did all they supposed to do. And they said that they didn’t get the bill in time
and now they want to be abated. I don’t know what came out of Finance. I mean no
recommendation. I wish Mr. Reece was here to address it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: One alternative would be to abate the penalty and not the interest.
That’s been done in [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We’ve done that before.
Mr. Shepard: Done in Finance Committee before.
Mr. Grantham: Do what now?
Mr. Shepard: We have abated the penalty, Mr. Grantham, but not the interest.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] interest but not the penalty.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t have a problem with it.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just a question. I know we do it a lot, but when there are errors, but I
mean I was just interested to know whether if we didn’t – guess I just play devil for a
second, you know. If we didn’t do anything wrong, why are we paying it back? I mean
I’m just posing that to anybody who wants to answer it. I mean we do it, but there is
66
usually some reason, and I’m not saying I would be opposed to voting for doing it, but if
we did everything that was correct, and I don’t hear anybody here from either one of our
offices and I don’t see the person here, and I’m a little – it’s not my day to necessary be
in favor of granting money to invisible folks. I mean why are we doing it? It may be a
small amount that we’re doing, but we usually have a procedure as to why we are doing
it. I’m just playing Satan for five seconds. I mean we can, but I mean we usually run
into a hassle to a point where we don’t want to give some of them back [inaudible] that
kind of thing, and here today nobody is here and nobody is here on the tax side and
nobody is here for the petitioner’s side, and we fixing to go ahead on an just move it, and
I’m hearing everything was correct. I just wanted to know why we’re doing it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d just like to say I was at the meeting and I think we had three
people present and –
Mr. Colclough: Can’t hear you down here, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I was at the committee meeting, and instead of the four we had three
people present. Two voted for the abatement and one against, I do believe. And I think it
was not enough to carry it, so this is why it was not approved.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you shed some light on this?
Mr. Russell: Yes, Mr. Mayor, reading from the minutes of the committee
meeting, it seems that there was a mistake made but it wasn’t our mistake. The property
[inaudible] mailing address and never notified our office of the change. It’s the
responsibility of the taxpayer to notify us so the bills go to the right place. They
apparently have two accounts. He paid one but did not pay the other. The Tax
Assessor’s office made the correction, but it’s Mr. Reece’s statement that we feel that
he’s still responsible for the payment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Reece says in an email in the backup, “it is my opinion Mr.
Harland failed to notify us of his mailing address change.”
Ms. Sims: I’d like to make a substitute –
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: A substitute motion, I’d like to make a motion that we neither
abate – that we abate nothing. That we expect the taxes to be paid.
Mr. Mayor: Along with penalty and interest?
Ms. Sims: Along with penalty and interest.
When you move, you send a
change of address. And if that was not done properly, that isn’t our fault.
67
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s seconded. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’d just like to say –
Mr. Mayor: Speak into the mike so they can hear you.
Ms. Beard: Many times this happens. You know, you don’t get your bill, you
know, what have you. And I thought he paid the taxes, the old taxes. It was the penalty
that had not been paid.
Mr. Mayor: The record shows that he paid the taxes but not the penalty and not
the interest.
Ms. Beard: Exactly. And I don’t know, but the majority of us recommended
abating the penalty, I believe, [inaudible] and not the interest. And that was simply
because if you own land in Richmond County, you receive – sometimes you don’t
receive what you’re supposed to get, and things like this can happen. But for the most
part, we have a lot of taxes. I believe it was something like – was it 8,000, I’m not sure,
but we have to do what we think is in the best interest but our citizens are important to us
and we need to try and work with them.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor that would require these
folks to pay the bill in full. Penalty and interest. We’re ready to vote on that. All in
favor of that substitute motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard votes No.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 45.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
45. Approve authorization to contract the services of ICF Consultants, Inc. to
provide HOME program compliance management services.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] you want to give us a synopsis of this in 30 seconds or
less?
68
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, Commission, I am here on behalf of my
director, Mr. Warren Smith, who is ill today, and he asked me to stand in his stead.
Before you is a request for contractual services for the third party consultant for the
HOME program. In the 2003, Director Warren Smith assessed some of the needs of our
department and found that the HOME program was one of the programs that needs to
have the policies and procedures manuals implemented. This program is a very complex
program and we’ve been asking for a consultant to come and to provide assistance in
developing and implementing this policies and procedures for the particular HOME
program. The consulting firm is named ICF Consultants, and they’re going to assist us in
providing a HOME program compliance assessment, assist staff in preparing a
comprehensive operating policies and procedure manual and document and also
[inaudible] positive course to ensure effective and compliant results. The ultimate end of
the produce is for the department operational manual with sections on every part of the
policies that govern all the initial, initiatives that are required by the U.S. Department of
Housing & Urban Development.
Mr. Mayor: If you all will remember, I sent you a copy of the monitoring letter of
our HOME program which I received from HUD about a month ago. And part of the
findings were that there are some areas where we don’t have policies and procedures that
we have to get those established. And there is a question of whether HUD is going to pay
for this technical assistance to hire the consultant, or whether we would have to pay for it
out of our HUD allotment. And we’re continuing to negotiate with HUD now on exactly
who is going to pay for it, but we need to go ahead and get the work done. And this
would authorize the department to move forward, to get the consultant in here, get the
standard operating procedures development, and get it done in a timely manner so we can
clean up these deficiencies that were noted in that monitoring report. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. Question. We don’t have anybody on staff who can
write the policies and procedures? We’re going to pay a company $60,000 to come in
and write policies and procedures for us?
Mr. Speaker: I believe what it is, sir, is that the complexity of the HOME
program and meeting the federal requirements that HUD requires. The program is very
complex.
Mr. Colclough: Who manages the program now?
Mr. Speaker: A gentleman by the name of Mr. Douglas Manning is the
[inaudible] administrator.
Mr. Colclough: If we don’t have policies and procedures now, how is that
program being managed? Under what pretext?
Mr. Speaker: How is it being operated now?
69
Mr. Colclough: How is it being managed without any policies? It seems to me
that there ought to be somebody, as large as this organization is, somebody has to be in
this organization who have capabilities or writing policy and procedures. That comes
with the territory of being a director. If every director in an organization have to hire a
consultant to write policy and procedure for you, then why are you the director?
Somebody has to be on this staff that can do policy and procedure for the, for that piece
or department that you have. I just can’t see paying somebody $60,000 to come in and
do something that a director should be able to do. Or somebody in that department
should be able to do. How complex it is, I think there are guidelines, there is assistance
that you can get out there to help – and if you are right or wrong, then have somebody
come in to review what you’ve done. Pay them to review it. And then you go in and
make the corrections. But to pay somebody $60,000 to come in and do policy and
procedure for you [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, we did not have a
Administrative Service Committee meeting and a lot of these items were forward that
we’d have more clarity on them. I have been meeting with [inaudible] and the
[inaudible] for a couple of months now. Also, we have a subcommittee out there chaired
by Commissioner Beard, that’s successful and almost ready to bring that report back.
This is one of the things that came up from that, from working with the [inaudible]. As
we know that the way the government has been operating for some time, it has created a
lot of problems with [inaudible] saying now [inaudible] coming to get funding, we never
did it this way before. So out of that work session and with the director and meeting with
Stella Taylor from HUD, we thought it was best, and Commissioner Grantham also, and
Commissioner Mays attended some of the meetings, work sessions. This is one of the
important things that came out, that we thought it was good for the consultant that these
funds are being paid not out of the general fund but from the HOME program income, to
have a professional consultant to come in, that they recommend, and also our department,
to work along. So once the procedure manual is completed, I asked for the procedure
manual to be brought before the Commission, that we can look at it and we could
approve it, once they do it, and then from that point on it would sort of, as you say, set the
house in order, that here’s a manual, procedures that every organization should abide by.
It’s not an overnight change of a policy, it’s not coming from the director, it’s not coming
from Mr. Manning, it’s coming from – I mean it’s policies and procedures already
written, so I recommend that this be approved so we can move forward with that. This is
one of the answers to the problems, the many problems that we have in there. You know,
Mr. Smith already stated that he doesn’t have enough staff to just assign to policy writing
and so forth, and I think this would aid that department, too, of making sure. Once this
policy and procedure manual is finished, we know that we are working in the guidelines
and being in compliance of HUD because we have some serious issues that are out there,
that we have addressed them and they are working with us and I think that we are coming
So I strongly support this, that we go ahead and pass it, that’s a
to a resolve on them.
motion.
70
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second over here. Mr. Grantham, and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Having sat in on that meeting the other
day with the HUD officials, I felt like our HED Department was certainly relieved to the
fact that we had someone that we could engage the services of writing such a, such a plan
and program for us, and in doing so they would be required to follow along with those
plans and those programs that they put in place. And it was, it was looked at that if we in
house wrote our own plans and programs then we may not look, we may not be looked at
as favorable from some of the [inaudible] or some of the other people that would be
having to abide by those rules, and so having outside sources made good sense to me.
And I feel like that what we’ve done now is by not having to have any general funds
involved in this cost, and with the HOME program paying for this, HUD was pretty much
insistent that this be done, and in doing so we feel like that we are now getting back on
track with HUD and that they are willing to forgive some of the violations that may have
happened in the past, which Mr. Hankerson just alluded to, and certainly we hope that
that will be forthcoming very soon and we can get back in the right perspective with them
and the right framework and be able to do the things that we need to in cooperating with
HUD. So I second that motion, Mr. Mayor, to see that we get this accomplished.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll put you down for a third. We already have a second on that.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. I’ve got somewhat of a
problem with the $60,000. We need to put the blame where it needs to be. I think HUD
has got some responsibility to stand up and take to this thing, as well. If we don’t have
any guidelines, how can they say we are out of compliance? If HUD hadn’t sent down no
guidelines for us to go by, how can they tell us that we’re not doing what we supposed to
be doing? So evidently somebody somewhere got some guidelines and knows that we’re
not in our guidelines. What I don’t understand is there are other programs around the
state, around the world, ain’t no sense in reinventing the wheel. It’s rolling somewhere
right now. I mean rather than take $60,000 of HUD money that could be used to help
low-income and low-to-moderate income of people who is trying to do something with,
we going to pay some services to, to write a program who probably going on the web site
and pull it down, and when I need to go on the web I call Commissioner Mays. But
somebody ought to be able to go on the web and get something to relate to what we’re
doing. I mean this don’t take no rocket science now. This don’t take no brain surgeons
to do what we looking at here. There has got to be a program. HUD ought to have some
71
guidelines itself that we ought to know we can’t deviate from or we can’t add to. But if
they ain’t sending nothing, how do we know – we might have a better program we got
now, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what they have pointed out to us, Mr. Williams, is that we have
to write our own guidelines for our department. Those guidelines tell us how we are
going to take federal laws and federal regulations and apply them to the programs that we
administer, and that’s where we have been in trouble before, is that what we’ve done here
has not complied with federal law and federal regulations. Now HUD has told us in no
uncertain terms that we have got to get these procedure and these policies in writing and
in place. This particular consultant is under a master contract with HUD out of the
Atlanta office, and they have done some work for us already. As I said, we’re
negotiating with HUD now to see if we can get HUD to pay for some of this additional
work. But we’ve got to get the work done. We have set some deadlines by which we
have promised HUD we’ll get the work done. And so we have moved this forward today
saying give us the authority to go ahead and engage the consultant so we can get the work
going. And I think if you had sat in on a meeting that we had with the director of the
HUD program of Georgia and the monitoring team, that you would have gotten just as
the chairman of the committee and myself and Mr. Grantham and the key staff people
from the HED office, we got the message loud and clear that the we have been doing
business is not acceptable to HUD. Indeed, HUD has cited us specifically for one
substantial rule violation that potentially could cost this City $500,000 out of the general
fund or some other sources, but they have offered us forgiveness for the violation of this
rule, but part of what we have to do – our penance to receive this forgiveness is to move
forward with these consultants to get these things written. And I understand where
you’re coming from, because the consultant is probably going to pull something down
from the web site and then rewrite it to fit us. But that’s the nature of the beast that we’re
dealing with, with complying with what HUD is asking us to do.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, in the five years now that I been here, we have been
cited by HUD several times. And I sit with the director and I told Stella personally that I
fault HUD for some of the stuff that HND was doing, because if we are not in – if we are
not following the guidelines, then their office need to say we going to put the brakes on.
We done stopped payments form [inaudible], for not having [inaudible] and not being
able to come to the table with it, [inaudible] if this government, if we allow our HND or
HED Department to do some things, and they keep citing us, even from the point of we
was worried at one point about paying money back, that we thought we had to pay back
to HUD. My point is, Mr. Mayor, and me and you saying the same thing, just on a
different level here, that somebody is going to do this and write it to fit this city or this
HED and then charge us $60,000. But if we was so out of whack, why hadn’t they put
the brakes on from wherever they are and said y’all are not doing what you need to be
doing in that department, so until you get it right, we going to stop it right here? That has
not happened, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I think and I’m not going to speak for Mr. Hankerson and Mr.
Grantham, but I feel I do in this point, that if we don’t get this right, the [inaudible] aren’t
72
going to be the only people suffering. This City is not going to get the HOME funds,
they’re going to hold it us. That’s what? $2 million that is going to be held up until we
get this right, and we’ve been given a window of opportunity to get this right and we’re
trying to move forward to do that.
Mr. Colclough: I have one other question. You mentioned that we’re not
following federal and state laws when we’re dealing with this program. We have a law
department, we have lawyers on staff. Why can’t they take the laws and the guidelines
for HUD and write this project, rather than paying a consultant? They already on salary.
[inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, you know, I’ve had meeting after meeting after
meeting with [inaudible] and with the HED Department, with Stella, and they are going
to make sure that we are in guidelines and in compliance. And there are some rules – Mr.
Smith’s department, they know the rules, they know the guidelines for HED. But there
has been some problems and we past that, now, though – whose responsibility, whose
fault it was. The [inaudible], HND’s fault, and then HUD – I mean HUD is not going to
say it’s their fault. They going to say – the only thing HUD says if you’re out of
guideline you just pay it back. You can allocate it any kind of way you want to, but if we
come in and check, then you are going to either pay it back – that money, the city is
going to have to pay it or the [inaudible] is going to have to pay it [inaudible]. But this is
– one this manual is completed, which we will ratify, we will approve the manual at the
end, we got to get past this. And if we don’t get past this, we are just continuing to go in
circles. Because it’s a lack of trust out there, that everything that department, HED,
comes and brings to organizations, they are saying well it’s you. And so this is going
[inaudible] it’s HUD, and it’s going to be us, because there are some rules that the way
we applied money, there are some things that we are going to address later on.
Commissioner Williams brought up a question about rehab and how we handle rehab.
That’s going to be a decision of what we are going to have make about the grants or
whether they loans. HUD doesn’t care either way you do it. But we will make that.
That’s where the policy and procedure manual is going to come into play. So we come a
long ways and there is some other items on here, also, that are – after we go ahead and
vote on this, we vote it up or down. If we vote it down, then I’d like some volunteer
chairmen to chair it and take it back because the committee that has been meeting with
them, we been putting a lot of time in HED. I feel like an HED employee, I’m telling
you that. Because if I’m not meeting with Mr. Smith, I’m answering his emails or
answering his phone two or three times a day, of trying to get some things right in the
department. I think once we do this, I think it’s going to be set up, it’s going to eliminate
a lot of problems, everybody know what they supposed to be doing, and we do it that
way. So again, I hope that we move forward. I call for the question and approve this.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard had her hand up. I’m going to recognize her before we go
forward. Go ahead.
Ms. Beard: I was going to call for the question.
73
Mr. Mayor: You were?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support the motion on the floor for two
reasons. One is the – and it may not be the most important but I think it should be,
should be highlighted. I’m going to support it because of the persistence of the chairman
in wanting to get some semblance of order to some of the things that we’ve got over
there, and I appreciate his diligence in this matter and some other matters, particularly
where they’ve had to work with [inaudible] and neighborhood organizations. And that
was, that was one of the reasons I made the suggestion that he be chairman.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mays: But I’m hoping that in doing so, of getting a consultant on board and
I’m going to vote for that without any hesitation, but I think there are some things that we
need to make sure that happen on a parallel basis and they can move on, Mr. Mayor, at
another time, and that is that the, the department understand that they cannot get a
[inaudible] as they move along every day, over there every day, that some things are local
decisions. Cities across this country run department and in some places consultants are
needed. This is probably one where we need to do this. And to be able to get this part of
it done. But I think there are some things in there that I want to make sure that as they,
they step out and before they get to be so dogmatic with some of the rules that we do
make locally, that before we get in the situation [inaudible] go through and getting this to
this point, that they either receive or at least ask for the type of training that’s needed in-
house in the department to be able to run that area every day. Because every time that we
do take on a consultant to deal with [inaudible] on one hand we may say it doesn’t come
out of general fund, but it does come out of the money that can go directly to citizens that
need that money. And that’s the down side of it. But to do it right, I think it’s good
money that we spend to get in this direction. But I’m thinking they are going to want to
make a lot of changes that’s over there and I want to make sure that when they make
these changes, because I sat in on that early HOME program situation, [inaudible] I’m
sure they’re glad to have an independent voice to be able to come on board. But had
some of the stuff I heard in there happening that day been implemented or gone through
as gospel truth, they would have been in a world of trouble and you probably would have
been there to meet with them double that time, Mr. Chairman. So I think it’s something
that ought to be done, but I also think we ought to keep in mind the point that need to be
receptive in terms of the fact that if new things need to be done, some things they are
going to have to do as part of Augusta’s program and some of it’s local with HUD’s
blessing that they stay in compliance, but they are not going to be able to get a consultant
74
for everything they do over there and spend it out of the money that’s allocated and
comes down, and they’re not going to be able to call Stella or anybody else every day to
get a ruling. Now some stuff over there they are going to have to learn to do right from
the very beginning [inaudible] and I think that’s where the chairman has had his most
headaches, of getting a lot of that straight. So I’m going to support it, I do think they
need it, and we need to move it there, but I think the message needs to also go back to
them, Mr. Mayor, that they’ve got some things they got to do over there, too. Cause
we’re not going to consult everything out. [inaudible] outsourcing. If we are going to
consult everything over there, then it’s going to be some folk we ain’t going to be
consulting with. And [inaudible] answering service or whether you answer the phone
yourself, somebody going to pick it up [inaudible] same time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve had the question called on the motion. So let’s move
ahead with the vote then to approve the contract for the consultant services at HED. All
in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 46.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s let her read the caption and then I’ll recognize you.
The Clerk:
46. Approve authorization to establish the Augusta-Redevelopment Corporation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hankerson: I want to make a motion that
we pull this and go back to Administrative Services Committee.
In my last work
session that I had this week, there were still some legal questions that I have to get
cleared up concerned, some legal concerns, also, was generated from the work session,
some of the [inaudible]. So we’re not ready for this to go forward and these items that
we’re addressing coming from this department, we’ve had, we are having numerous
meetings and meetings and trying to iron it out. And we’re not taking anything and just
passing it. We take it back and take it back and once it comes here, we really went
through it, we really combed through it and really kind of gotten a consensus of a
majority of the [inaudible] that are meeting and all of them are coming to the meetings,
and we have went to the point now where we are calling individual [inaudible] in
themselves. I’ve already met with one. I’m meeting with another one. So we can
address the concerns and problems and questions that they have with their individual
[inaudible], so they’ll be speaking for themselves, and once we clear out those problems,
when it’s all over we are going to have a beautiful program.
75
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, in that same spirit, do you also need to send 47 and
49 back to the committee?
Mr. Hankerson: No. Well, in the motion, what I’d like to do, we’d like to send
46 back. 47 that’s I’d like to approve with the exception of 823 Broad Street, to be
discussed in legal today.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s wait until we get to it.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And you want to deal with 49 today also?
Mr. Hankerson: 49, for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Today?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we have a motion then to send 46 back to the committee.
Any discussion on that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem sending it back to committee, but a lot of stuff
has come out of HND, HED, Housing & Neighborhood Development, however you want
to –
Mr. Hankerson: Housing Economic.
Mr. Williams: Housing Economic Development. Even that, Commissioner
Hankerson, the renaming. I mean every time you look around there is some serious
problems. I know Administrative Services been trying to work with this, but see, when
you come with all these changes it scares me because I think you trying to pull something
over on me. I’ve got a serious problem with all of the stuff that had to be changed
overnight. If this program was so bad, if we done so, so, so wrong all this time, why all
of a sudden it’s coming to the light now, just being put out there? From the approving,
the [inaudible], to establish the Augusta Redevelopment Corporation, that – I got a
serious problem with that. When we let stuff out of the bag, when they get to this table,
when it get to committee, we are going to have to talk about it and we going to have to
talk about it again when it gets to this full Commission. Those are thing that need to be
76
worked out and I agree with Commissioner Hankerson, those are thing that need to be
worked out and talked out before it gets to this point, but there are so many changes that
happening and if you look at not this agenda, but our past agendas that tried to come
through that we stopped, that we blocked. So we may need to have a serious
conversation with some of the directors and department heads in HND. HED. To get
some, some, some things straight now. We thought we had the person to run that facility,
to be director of that facility. But I’m getting some [inaudible] about all the stuff that
proposed to be changed and been so bad [inaudible]. Here at the last Commission
meeting, there’s a rumor out there, got over one part of this community, if not this whole
community, about how bad things were with the Laney Walker Development Corporation
and what they had done wrong. Then come up and say we just made a mistake. People
make too much money, Mr. Mayor, in these departments. We pay good money for what
we don’t get in this government. And I think it’s time for somebody to call somebody in
and explain to them either you do the job or you leave the job. It ain’t hard to figure out.
It’s simple, Mr. Mayor. But I wanted to make that comment. Ain’t got no problem with
it going back to committee, but it’s too many changes coming up too fast and then they
want us to absorb all that and then make a rational decision on all the stuff that been
proposed. I got a serious problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to be very brief, Mr. Mayor. I’ve heard one comment that
has come out of the mouth of everybody that’s come here from another city. They say I
can’t believe y’all do things that backwards in the city of Augusta. And this department,
department head and this chairman are making strides to address the fact that this city has
not complied with federal guidelines in a lot of cases in the past. It’s a difficult
transition. It is a lot of change. But I’ve been well pleased with the progress that we’re
making, the recommendations. I’m sure they are not all going to be things palatable to
this Commission, but certainly I think we are moving towards a more professionally run
and consistently run in regards to federal codes within this department than we’ve ever
done before. I’m pleased with the work.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to send this item back to committee, item 46. All
in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, is number 47.
The Clerk:
47. Approve entering into commercial revitalization “Façade Improvement”
contract agreements for following project sites: 116-122 Ninth Street, 305-307 Ninth
Street, 32 Eighth Street, 429 Walker Street, 509-511 Broad Street, 670 Broad Street,
823 Broad Street, 512 Reynolds Street.
77
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you wanted to make a motion on this?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I make a motion to approve all the facades with the
exception of 823 Broad Street. We need to discuss that in legal and then we can
come back on the floor, if that’s approved, and to approve that one.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second from Ms. Sims. Discussion? I just want to say that it’s great
we’ve got this program going again. Tremendous way to spur our redevelopment. This
is private property owners freshening up their properties. All in favor of the motion,
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to number 49.
The Clerk:
49. Ratify nominees selected for Augusta Housing Trust Fund (“FUND”) Board.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Colclough: Just a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Background [inaudible]. It’s got a list of names here.
Mr. Mayor: I think there was a name and an affiliation, where they worked, what
they did for a living, something like that. I don’t think they’re talent bank forms per se.
Mr. Hankerson: Didn’t have the talent bank on them. I know that it’s a
diversified group on those individuals [inaudible] so forth. It’s a diversified group.
Mr. Grantham: I know you had one on Mr. [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: Can I finish?
78
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: What is the requirements for the people on the board?
[inaudible] what are the requirements that they have to meet, or just be a citizen?
Mr. Hankerson: That was the experience, the professional experience, what they
are doing in the community, [inaudible] housing and finances and so forth. They way
they were selected. In the background, each one of these individuals, they are business
developers and real estate developers and economic opportunity representative
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll recall, a couple of months ago Mr. Smith sent to each
member of the Commission a request for nominees to serve on this board. And I think he
only heard back from one or two Commissioners.
Mr. Colclough: Maybe it’s my fault.
Mr. Mayor: That’s where the names came from. And then I think they solicited
some names from some of the folks involved in development in the community. Trying
to put a diverse board together. Diversity in experience and diversity in ethnicity and
everything else. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I need to ask the maker of the motion for a friendly amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: It was just something that I had asked the Attorney. He’s going
to check on what I needed, Mr. Chairman, on a friendly side. Is that – I have
[inaudible] the Attorney is going to check one provision as it relates to our dual
capacity boards. And I need to make sure because I think he’s got the time and the
talent to do both. But it’s one of my representatives on another board and it may
have to mean that he’ll have to make a choice between where he serves, or if this is a
case where a person can serve on an alternative board. Because some of them, I
know, are classified as full boards, some of them [inaudible] have been on a part
time basis [inaudible] and I just wanted to kind of disclose that. And if we had to go
back on one because of that, that way it would be noted, but he’s going to check
that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, question. These addresses, are these home addresses
or businesses addresses on this application?
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible], do you know? Are these addresses home addresses or
business addresses?
Mr. Speaker: I believe they’re home addresses, sir. Some of them – I’m not sure,
I’m not sure.
79
Mr. Mayor: They appear to be home. It’s been represented to me, Mr. Williams,
that all of these people are residents of Richmond County. None of them live in
Columbia County or North Augusta. That’s what was represented to me.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, please vote with the
usual sign. Mr. [inaudible], if there is an issue about the service, dual service, bring that
matter back to the committee [inaudible] deal with that appropriately.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 50.
Mr. Hankerson: I so move to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second on item number 50. I need the Clerk to read the
caption for that, please.
The Clerk:
50. Approve the hiring of a Financial Project Leader in Information Technology
(IT) at the salary above minimum (Approved by Public Safety Committee October
11, 2004- Item 25).
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual
sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Item 23.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to reconsider item number 23.
Mr. Hankerson: The attorney – we asked the attorney to come back and give us
some information on 23 about the K-Mart lease payment [inaudible].
80
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to reconsider item 23.
23. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and K-Mart
regarding the placement of a transit shelter on Deans Bridge Road and subject to
further negotiations of the Attorney relative to the reduction of the lease payment.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go ahead and take up item 23 then. Madame Clerk,
would you read the caption for the record, please?
The Clerk:
23. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and K-Mart
regarding the placement of a transit shelter on Deans Bridge Road and subject to
further negotiations of the Attorney relative to the reduction of the lease payment.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 11, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you had a report on this?
Mr. Shepard: I do, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. After last
Monday’s committee, we sent an information package again to K-Mart so that they – we
included aerial photographs and include diagrams. The K-Mart negotiator has informed
us that she would be unavailable until today. We have been making calls [inaudible]
today to determine her status. She has not returned my call. The specific addition that
the Commission wanted was to reduce the rent to $1.00 a year in consideration of the fact
that we’re going to put a shelter out there, we’re going to, I believe, have concrete pad.
So I am unable to say she’s accepted our rental term, but we have worked that every day
to bring it to a conclusion. And I’d ask that the matter – I’d be happy to report on it at
next week’s committees and just keep this thing on the front burner at K-Mart. I think it
would have been done had the representative from K-Mart not been in the office. In fact,
I made one last check about an hour ago and she had not responded. But we well
understood our task to reduce the rent and we are still on it.
Mr. Mayor: Let me suggest. Mr. Hankerson and I had a meeting with a couple of
gentlemen yesterday on an unrelated project, but during that meeting they disclosed to us
that there is a little strip center adjacent to the K-Mart. There is a record store and some
other places in there. They own that strip center and I think they would be very interested
81
in talking to us about a location for the bus perhaps for $1.00 a year if we have some
trouble with K-Mart not being accessible.
Mr. Shepard: I can’t say that K-Mart is opposed to the $1.00.
Mr. Mayor: That could be a fall-back for us. Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I would like to know where that location is and what
are we going to do about getting something done. We’ve been procrastinating with this
thing for a few months now. Here it is into the winter, it’s raining today. I went out on
yesterday when I was on my vigilante attack with my camera and took pictures of the bus
area again yesterday, and I’m sorry I didn’t get them developed to get them here in time.
But it’s simply bad for us to have to wait and wait and wait. Now we waited on K-Mart
to get an agreement, we waited on the shelter that the storm stopped. People are sitting,
people are standing in the rain. Now we talking about ridership and why it’s going down.
It’s going to go down further if we don’t try to assist those people who have to ride the
bus. Now I was out there yesterday afternoon. I’ve got some photographs I can show
you any time I get them developed in this afternoon to show you what people dealing
with. We got those – and they plain sorry. Ain’t no other word for it. We got those
sorry benches that we thought was going to be some good and put out there, with no
shelter, just in the middle of the sun for people to sit and wait on a bus. The small shelter
that’s there – we got a shelter which we may not be able to put up permanently but we
ought to at least have something up to protect those who are trying to ride. Now I intend
to have a meeting with the transit director again. There is not only a problem with the
people waiting and suffering with the weather, but also with the connection of the bus
and that’s another issue, Mr. Mayor. But can’t we do something to, to alleviate the wait
and the time period we been going through? Here we are now, have not been able to get
in touch with K-Mart to find out if they going to accept the, the reducing of the fee. I
said it in committee and I say it right here on this Commission. These [inaudible] that we
pick up on the street with K-Mart’s name on them – now if you drop trash on the
highway [inaudible] Bob Young’s name down there, they know who to come to. There’s
something got to be done to let them understand that we are trying to work with them and
they need to try to work with us. It’s been too long. It’s been over six, maybe even eight
months we been dealing with this situation about where people going to sit. I’m blessed
not to have to ride the bus, but I feel sorry for those who do have to right the bus, have to
deal with those conditions. Then we want more riders and want to know why the bus
ain’t, you know, why there ain’t any more riders. Please, Mr. Mayor, I need some help
with that situation, whether it be K-Mart or moving to the other location you mentioned
about. Fred Russell and I talked about moving it across the street, but that’s going to put
a load on those people who have to travel across the highway in order to catch the bus.
But something got to be done. Something.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, last Monday I had not foreseen that the K-Mart negotiator
would be out of pocket for the time that she is. That’s why – it’s very serious, I
82
understand, I have even been out to look at the area. The commitment in my office is to
get that lease finished. And I don’t think K-Mart is opposed. I just think there are other
matters on their plate and they’ll get to it. And that’s why I suggested to keep it on the
committee next week. If I can report tomorrow, I’ll be happy to circulate a list and get
votes to get it finished, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, I agree with you, but please, sir, understand that we
– for some, for some people, for some agenda items we go out of our way to make sure
that it gets done. But here it is eight months. That’s unacceptable to be eight months
talking about a shelter for people who ride the bus. I mean that don’t make good sense to
me. So all I’m saying to you, and I know your plate is full – you got plenty of assistants,
you got folks that you can so go and they ought to go, and you say come and they ought
to come. And they should have gone out to K-Mart and came back with something by
now, rather than waiting. You could have drove a automobile to the home office of K-
Mart and got something in our hand by now. And it’s people – it just not acceptable, Mr.
Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I understand, Mr. Williams, and that’s why I am taking – I’m not
delegating it, I’m taking it.
Mr. Mayor: Would it be helpful, Mr. Williams – I wish Mr. Russell were in here
– since we don’t have a shelter out there, in the interim if the forecast is for inclement
weather, could we just take an empty transit bus and park it there and people could wait
on the bus for the bus to pull up? That certainly would give them relief from the
elements?
Mr. Williams: Something need to happen, Mr. Mayor. And those who don’t ride
the bus may not understand that, but these are, these are taxpayers, too. You talking
about the one cent sales tax. These are people who are paying. Something need to
happen. Bus, shelter or something.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to just follow on what my twin brother had to say. Eight
months to build a shelter, eight months to build a shelter, to get approval for the shelter. I
mean all of us ought to be – our stomachs ought to be turning over this and there ought to
be a cry for process improvements to say the very least on this. This is, you know, it’s
typical of the way we do things and what we accept in this government. We’ve got the
worst case of the “can’t do’s” – there ought to have been a tent up there or something at
least temporary. We should have had a shelter up there, erected, brought in with air
conditioning and satellite link and everything else by now with the time that we’ve
expended on this. And you know, this is not only an indictment of our system, but it’s an
indictment of us and the transit department head, the administrative staff, everybody.
Certainly, if we can’t handle getting a dad gum bus shelter put up in eight months, then
all of us ought to be pretty upset with our performance as a government and get this
handled and try to address other things, too, that seem to take the same [inaudible].
83
Mr. Mayor: Do we have some kind of a motion or just want to let this sit until –
Mr. Cheek: A motion to allow the attorney to negotiate with K-Mart for the
$1.00 a year agreement and if that doesn’t occur, that we move forward with the
agreement in hand.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if could I’ll second that if I can get an
amendment that we put a bus, a truck or anything to try to show the riders – we
talking about getting riders to ride.
Who would ride the bus, to sit in the rain to wait
on the bus and then don’t know what time it’s going come? But I second that with that
amendment to give the attorney time to negotiate but not put something there to alleviate
the people have to sit in the weather. You mean to tell me you work eight hours a day
and come and sit in the hot sun to wait on the bus to come that might come an hour, hour-
and-a-half later? No, I don’t think you would.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t see Mr. Russell here, but is Deputy Administrator, the Acting
Deputy is here and she can deliver that message to Mr. Russell and get it to Mr. Johnson,
I’m sure. Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion then. All in favor – here comes Mr.
Russell – all in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign. You heard that, Mr.
Russell? Okay.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re going to move over to item number 53.
The Clerk:
53. OTHER BUSINESS:
nd
Discuss the possible rescheduling of the November 2 regular meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. GranthamRealizing that’s the election day, general election, I move
:
rd
that we change our date to November 3, Wednesday.
Mr. Williams: Second.
rd
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to move it to November 3. Be Wednesday
instead of Tuesday. Mr. Hankerson? That’s church night.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d rather for it to be on Monday, if we going change it. If we
going to do that change, I’d like for the compromise to be on Monday instead of on a
Wednesday.
84
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me just say, every year I’ve had to run we’ve had a meeting
on election day. We’ve never moved it when the Mayor had to run. We’ve done all
kinds of things with meetings in November. We have a motion to move it to Wednesday.
Would anybody like to make a substitute to move it to another day or leave it where it
is?
Ms. Sims: If we had – I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, if we’re having a problem, why
don’t we just leave it?
Mr. Grantham: Fine with me, okay with me.
Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion to leave it on Tuesday.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to leave it on Tuesday. Mr. Mays? Already got
Tuesday and Wednesday on the table now.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: I was just going to ask the question [inaudible]. I think the, Mr.
Mayor, the times you have been running we probably have met, it’s probably just the fact
that nobody really, really asked about it.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] but really, I think probably nobody in terms of dealing
with it, I can, I can come any of the three days. I know if you, if you – [inaudible] been
involved with both, I been involved with governments where [inaudible] election day
whether you were actually running or your colleagues might have been running you were
working with [inaudible] where they just didn’t meet at all. You know. On that day. It
was moved, you know. But I mean I can live with it, but you know, I was thinking
probably cause I know it’s obvious that we got two people just on this board that if you
go to Wednesday, and I think I may have, I may have even been one that told Ms. Bonner
verbally Wednesday was fine with me, but I could go either way. I could go Monday or I
could go to the Wednesday day. And so if you go Monday, [inaudible] I’m just
wondering about [inaudible] done in terms of concentration in terms of a Tuesday. I can
tell you right now, from the way some things are looking and the limitations of my
pocket, I’m going to be out hussling on Tuesday, on election day, I am going to try to
come in here if we meet on Tuesday, I be in here on Tuesday on the time we do, but the
rest of the time I’m going to be in the street. So I can deal with the Monday if that’s
better, you know, to move it to that day. I prefer that we not be here and then quite
frankly be up until the wee hours on election night, it’s probably better that you’re not
here on Wednesday [inaudible] Monday but I would say Monday, if that meets, if we
going to change at all. But I mean if we don’t change, then we just have to meet on
Tuesday.
85
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Mr. Grantham: Well, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: My reason for asking for Wednesday was selfish as well. And
that is that I’m not going to be here Monday. I’m going to be in Arizona. I’m going to
be with my grandchildren and I plan to come back Monday night. And so I was trying to
move to a date that I could be in attendance, but certainly not necessary that I be here. I
trust the judgment of you gentlemen and ladies and y’all can do what you need to on
Tuesday or Wednesday. But if you need to do it on Monday, please feel free to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Wednesday works better for me. It gives me the
opportunity to get my work week started, so that’s the reason I support Wednesday as
well. But again, I have some flexibility, but my vote is for Wednesday.
Ms. Sims: I vote for Tuesday.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have – we have one motion to have it on Tuesday and one
motion to have it on Wednesday. Let’s just go ahead and vote and see which is the better
day.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Monday.
Mr. Mayor: Can we vote, can we vote this way? If you want to meet on Tuesday,
vote with your green button. If you want to be here Wednesday, vote with your red
button. If you want to be here Monday, vote with your amber light.
Mr. Grantham: What if you don’t want to be here at all?
Mr. Mayor: Don’t vote.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s just use the light code and see if that –
The Clerk: [inaudible] Code says [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We can take a poll here with our colored lights. Try to move
forward from that.
86
Mr. Russell: Could you repeat the color code? I got lost.
Mr. Hankerson: Let’s vote in our usual way, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Want to vote in the usual way?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Vote it up or down.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] gets us away from [inaudible] Wednesday [inaudible] it’s
bad for a couple of people on Wednesday. Let me ask the Clerk something in terms of
getting out our material. And I think we’ve got to be mindful of staff. And I know how
we set our times [inaudible] Thursday, that’s, that’s headache day for y’all that’s in there.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this, because Wednesday, Wednesday we know is church
night. What if we met earlier in the day, like at 12:30 or so on Wednesday? Then
hopefully you’d be out of here early enough to go to church Wednesday night. That’s
just another alternative. Bobby?
Mr. Hankerson: That’s fine with me. My time, if my time expires, I know what
to do. Let’s move on. Earlier date, earlier time would be better, but you know, when I
got to go I just leave.
Mr. Mays: Got to go to election party. I’m just cutting the fool.
Mr. Mayor: Barbara?
Ms. Sims: Let me get this straight. Are we going to say a yes vote Monday, a yes
vote Tuesday, a yes vote Wednesday, we going to vote? What are we doing?
Mr. Mayor: Well, the motion, the motion on the floor, the substitute motion is to
meet on Tuesday. The main motion is to meet on Wednesday. And then if we meet on
Wednesday, then we can decide whether we want to meet at the regular time.
Ms. Sims: Are we going to vote on Tuesday right this minute?
Mr. Mayor: Tuesday comes first cause that’s the substitute motion.
Ms. Sims: Got it.
Mr. Williams: What time? 12:30?
87
Mr. Mayor: Well, we – if we get to Wednesday, then we can do that. Everybody
that wants to meet Tuesday, then you need to vote with the usual sign. That’s the
substitute motion. Tuesday is election day.
Mr. Mays: Let’s go Tuesday morning.
Mr. Mayor: You can do it early.
Mr. Grantham: That’s your call, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: What time do you need to be on the street, Willie?
Mr. Mays: All day. Now, I’m [inaudible]. But I, I was going to say if we were
going to go Tuesday, like we end up staying in here, cause of the time, if we going to stay
on election day, maybe just move the time to earlier in the day if we’re going to do that.
Mr. Mayor: We could do that.
Ms. Beard: That sounds good.
Mr. Cheek: Now there are those of us that have regular jobs that have to go in to
work and have time for our families. I mean I thought I’d bring it up since it’s relevant.
Mr. Mayor: We’re trying to vote on – who prefers to meet, who prefers to meet
on Tuesday?
Mr. Williams: My regular job is on Wednesday evening.
Mr. Mayor: If you prefer to meet on Tuesday, vote with the usual sign. I’ve got
two votes to vote on Tuesday.
Ms. Sims: Tuesday.
Mr. Mayor: That motion fails.
Ms. Sims: That’s three votes.
Mr. Williams: Say what now?
Mr. Mayor: Tuesday. Okay, there’s three votes for Tuesday. One abstention and
one no vote.
Ms. Sims: There is more than three.
Mr. Grantham: You didn’t vote.
88
Ms. Sims: I did vote.
Mr. Grantham: Now you did.
Mr. Mayor: There’s five votes. Five votes for Tuesday.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for every day up there.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: As long as it don’t interfere with Friday night football.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Andy voted no. What about Miss Betty?
Ms. Beard: I vote no.
Mr. Mayor: You vote no? Okay. All right. So we don’t have six votes to meet
on Tuesday.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion fails 5-3-1
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back to the motion to meet on Wednesday. Is it the will of
this Commission to meet on Wednesday? If you can meet on Wednesday, vote with the
usual sign. I’d rather go back to these zoning items. They were a lot easier. All right,
we’ve got six votes.
The Clerk: We’ve got six.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Smith and Ms. Sims vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: To move it to Wednesday.
The Clerk: Wednesday.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Mayor: - the regular time or is there a desire to –
89
Mr. Grantham: 12:30.
Mr. Mayor: A little earlier? You want the Clerk and I to work that out and then
notify you, if that works for y’all.
Mr. Cheek: Well, no more than noon earlier.
Mr. Mayor: It wouldn’t be before noon. I can assure you of that. Give you a
chance to eat before you come. All right. Let’s set it up, Ms. Bonner, let’s set it up for
12:30.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Y’all remember now, I voted with all of y’all.
Mr. Mayor: I know you did. Willie, let’s see if you stick with them for the rest of
the agenda. So we’ll set it up for 12:30 on Wednesday, so eat before you come. Item
number 54 is the next item.
54. Update from the Attorney regarding the process to address boarded
up/abandoned structures. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. I asked Ms. Flournoy in the law
department to take this item.
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this – Mr. Shepard
asked me to contact the City of Savannah concerning an ordinance about boarded-up
houses. And in contacting Savannah, there was not an ordinance that dealt with boarded-
up houses. I also contacted the City of Macon, and they have a policy, but there is no
such ordinance. It is my position that we don’t need such an ordinance when we have the
nuisance abatement ordinance. That would deal with the problem, because if you have a
boarded-up house that presents an unsanitary issue or a safety issue to the community, we
can use the nuisance abatement process to remove that home and go through the process.
Also, in doing, in dealing with issues of property and taking property from an owner, you
have to afford a person due process under the federal and state constitution, and that
means that prior to taking that property you are going to have to go through the court
system. So that is done with the nuisance abatement process. So it’s my
recommendation that we don’t need another ordinance. We need to just use the nuisance
abatement order for that purpose.
Mr. Mayor: Let me – Marion, I’ll get to you in a second. Let me just ask one
question to clarify what you just said, Vanessa. You say we could use the nuisance
abatement ordinance for sanitary issues, sanitation issues and safety issues. Now what
90
about [inaudible] issues, appearance issues? Can you use the nuisance abatement for the
way something looks?
Ms. Flournoy: No, sir, it’s not exactly for that purpose, but if it poses a safety
issue or fire standard, sanitation, all of those issues, then it would be nuisance abatement.
No, you would not use it purely for appearance purposes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard the attorney previously with those
same remarks and I thank her for her efforts. But since we don’t have an ordinance or we
don’t think we need an ordinance, what’s going to happen to our city? When I think
about Laney Walker right now, there is – we allowed the School Board, who has bought
this property already, to have at least four properties that been burnt almost to the ground
to still stand in our city. Mill Street, I had a call from Mr. Sol Walker, Mayor, who
supposed to call you and Fred Russell already, about some of his relatives that live next
door to a piece of property that been burned down for over ten to 12 years, that’s been
allowed to stand and stay there. My reason for asking for an ordinance or for something
to be done is to try to clean up a lot of this stuff that just sitting and people have to live
with it. Now let me tell you what happens. And I know you know, but let me just
reiterate what happens when a property sets up. First of all, when a property sets up,
vagrants normally go in and to sit around and to drink and to do drugs and do other
things. I got seniors living in homes, they are afraid to walk out of the door, especially
after dark. Now it ain’t just started. It’s been going on for a long, long time. On the
th
corner of 12 and MLK, the old Milledgeville Road area, there’s about 20 apartments,
shotgun houses that’s been sitting there boarded up for many, many years. If you go
thth
down 12 Street, to your right, they all the way down 12 Street to the next street. If you
go up Milledgeville Road to the next street, they all up and down there. If you go up and
down MLK at all, and that just a drop in the bucket, don’t turn, please don’t turn on
Forest Street, cause if you make a right turn on Forest Street, you going immediately
make a reversal and turn around and go back the other way cause there is so many. And
that just a part of this, this scenario. My question is why don’t we have something in
place to not let these properties sit there? These properties not no – these properties not
been there for one or two years. These properties been there for ten, 12, some even 15
years. And it’s sickening to the people who have to deal with that. So to the attorney, to
whoever is in the legal position to find something that will work for us to move these
properties to the Land Bank Authority, all of the property we supposed to have bought,
all these things we supposed to done, I hear all of this talk. If you didn’t get paid until
these properties was moved, I think we would see some of this stuff gone. But since you
get paid even though the property still sitting there, it had not happened, Mr. Shepard. I
need to know what’s the process, how can we get a handle on this. I’m not saying it’s
going to happen overnight. But it’s been too long. It’s been longer than eight months
[inaudible]. It’s been ten and 12 years folks have been living with this kind of stuff,
sitting in their front yard, on the side of their house, and they have to deal with it. And
because we don’t go through there. Now if I need to put a video camera out there to
come back and show you that I’m not imagining this, that it’s there, then I can do that,
91
too. But it’s – we would never clean up until we shed some light on those areas that had
all the darkness on it all this time. People are tired . Drugs are multiplying fast because
nobody cares. There are some people who don’t have anywhere else to go, don’t have no
other recourse, but just to be afraid, and I think this government ought to really look at
that in a way that we can get something done. Now if we ain’t got nothing now, we sure
ought to have something pretty soon as the way we can handle it. I hear you talking
about the Land Bank, going through the Land Bank and abating this property and taking
it over. Something got to be done. My question is what are we going to do?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, there are ongoing efforts. Mr. James is also, relative to
his duties at the Land Bank and [inaudible] condemnation process. I think you should
have gotten a letter from me last week about the status of the batches that are going
through, the process which has been cast to the law department. Harry, correct me if I’m
wrong, I think we’re in our four batch –
Mr. James: Five.
Mr. Shepard: - of properties that are pending now to address the, address this
situation, Mr. Williams. The process gets us title to these properties where we can deal
with them and put them in the Land Bank or resell them. Harry, I know that we
cooperated on a letter last week.
Mr. James: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: For the record, would you please respond to that?
Mr. James: Let me – Mr. Williams, and the rest of the Commissioners, you know
I am just as frustrated, too, about abandoned houses, boarded-up houses. But there is a
right way to do things and there is a wrong way to do things. Now you cannot demolish
homes, you cannot take homes from citizens just because you want to see a problem
alleviated. We have to follow laws, we have to follow procedures. Now the procedure in
place in the state of Georgia is nuisance abatement. There are specific procedures that I
reviewed and collaborated on with Mr. Shepard [inaudible] outlining the procedure, how
it’s done. It takes approximately four months from the inception to the conclusion in
court. Now within the last approximately eight months, we have through the nuisance
abatement program, and I’m proud of it and we couldn’t have done it any quicker, no
sooner, or no more competently than we have done it. We have taken to court and we
have gotten court orders of demolition on over 100 abandoned, boarded-up homes in this
city. Now that’s the procedure that’s used, that’s the procedure we’re going to have to
use. We are doing that. Next week we are taking into court approximately 47 more
properties in this community. It cannot be done any faster, unless you are going to give
us the staff to do it where you have two or three attorneys taking maybe 100 cases to
court. But even we as a legal office cannot do it because we can only take the cases that
are referred to us from code enforcement. You must remember the initial steps are with
code enforcement. They must find the properties, they may write up the reports on the
properties, and then they are referred to us for action. Now once they are referred to us
92
for action, then it takes approximately another three months for us to initiate the work and
to get into court.
Mr. Williams: Mr. James, can I interrupt you just a minute? I appreciate what
you do. Don’t think I don’t. But I still got a serious problem when we been doing this
for quite some time but I have not – I asked you for a report. The report I got was how
the process works. And what y’all do. What I asked for was how many properties have
you took in and let either [inaudible] or small business investor come in and start to
rebuild and do something. I hadn’t seen one of those. What I asked for – let me finish.
What I wanted to see was the [inaudible] process or the process that y’all been through
and done took something in and we trying to put something back. The Land Bank and all
the stuff that we took in, there’s a property right now that License & Inspection, Rob
Sherman and them, pulled in over on Cratha Drive. House been there for 12 years burnt.
Finally – the property owner wouldn’t do anything with it, they walked away from it, so
we got it approved to tear it down. The empty lot is still sitting there. They grass is
growing high as that podium right there now. But the neighbors have to look out the door
at it. The neighbors have to deal with the rats and the other rodents that run through
there. And then people talking about – and it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s close to Gordon
Highway. It ain’t like it’s way out in south Augusta. Andy, I know you got some, as
well. But that was just one where a house sit there where vagrants was going in, living,
the house burnt almost down, but it’s sit there for 12 long years and finally – it’s been
down over a year, but there’s nothing happened to it. There’s an investor that wanted to
come in, [inaudible], Arthur Marshall, Andy, tried to buy the property from the City to go
ahead and build two structures on it. And nothing been done. It’s still sitting there.
Mr. James: May I respond now?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, you sure can. I hope you can tell me something now.
Mr. James: Well, as you know, Mr. Williams, I was in on that property, Cratha,
that you are speaking about, from inception, that you asked me to take a look at that.
And I remember telling you at that time after taking a look at that property there were a
lot of title problems with that property. That’s not the type of problem that we want to
burden the City with. We cannot take property if there is no clear title on the property.
That particular piece of property, there is no clear title on the property. The owner of the
property – one is deceased, the other owner who is a spouse, is in a nursing home, who
had dementia. I remember that case well. There is a son who cares nothing about the
property, so now how is the City going to get the property, how are we going to get title
to the property? We can’t.
Mr. Williams: I’m just a Commissioner, I’m not the lawyer. That’s something
y’all need to research. That’s something y’all need to find out how we can do that. I
can’t sit here and solve that problem for you.
Mr. James: Well, I can tell you, Commissioner, there is no way we can get it.
And that’s why that property is not owned by the Land Bank. Secondly, the Land Bank
93
has its own board. The Land Bank is formulating policies and procedures as to what
properties will come into the Land Bank. If you – the meeting is open to the public. We
notify you, you come in and hear what the board is saying, we don’t want just any type of
properties in the Land Bank. The board has made that clear. We want viable properties
that can be turned back into the community to put back on the tax rolls. There are some
properties we do not want. There are properties offered to us with all types of
environmental problems. Do we want those in the Land Bank? Do we want someone
else’s headache? No. We do not. And then you have to remember there is a difference
between the Land Bank and what we do in nuisance abatement. Now once we get to the
nuisance abatement and get the court order, then those cases are referred to the Tax
Commissioner’s office. We still cannot get them in the Land Bank. We cannot get them
in the Land Bank until they are sold and we bid on them on the courthouse steps or if the
City actually takes possession of the property and then deed them over to the Land Bank
Authority.
Mr. Williams: Mr. James, I appreciate everything you been saying and I thank
you for your time. I don’t think we get anywhere here. Something got to be done with
those properties. We can’t say because they are contaminated or they are not big enough
to do something with, something’s got to happen. There has got to be some law, there
has got to be something somewhere. And in your profession as a lawyer, I expect you to
find. I mean find it, wherever it is, whatever city it is in, to get it and if there is any
properly to implement it here in Augusta, so we can start to clean up. I don’t need, the
City is not in business to gather property. We’re trying to get these [inaudible] that we
been talking about all year, these investors to come in and put them back on the tax
books. But we’re letting them sit there. We, you as well, we are letting them sit there
because we have not done anything. Maybe we can’t do nothing. Maybe I’m talking to
the wrong group. But we need to find a way to get those properties back on the tax books
to help the City of Augusta with the [inaudible]. And that ain’t happening.
Mr. Mayor:
Mr. Williams, let me make a suggestion that might move us forward
with this. We pay a lot of money every year to belong to organizations, that from time to
. And I think it probably wouldn’t hurt for us to look at
time we call on to help us
GMA, ACCG, see if they have any model ordinances, check with the National
League of Cities and NACO, do they have any model ordinances or best practices
from other communities that would help us address these issues that you bring up.
I
don’t think because we’ve talked to the people in Savannah and Macon that we’ve ended
the search for information. There are many other places to go and to look and I think the
staff could spend some good time pursuing that.
Mr. Williams: I’ll make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor, and I was
thinking our attorney would have that expertise to do that, whether it be in
Mississippi, New Orleans, or somewhere. Find it and let’s put it to work.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
94
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, you had your hand up?
Ms. Beard: Never mind.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further? Okay, we’ll vote on the motion. All in
favor of the motion from Mr. Williams then let’s vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us to the legal meeting. Mr. Shepard?
55. LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d ask for a legal meeting on the following subjects:
pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel. Looking at number D and
having discussed this with Mr. Reece, I do not think that that would be an appropriate
category to discuss in legal, so therefore – Mr. Reece has suggested a workshop type
approach to that, and I have his number. He’s on vacation this week. I’d ask for a legal
meeting only as to A, B and C. If you want to move D to outside the legal meeting, I
think that would be appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of going into legal for the purposes stated by the
attorney, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Shepard, you want to take up the real estate
first?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right, a two minute break, and Ms. Bonner, we’ll start with real
estate.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Ms. Beard not voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
95
Mr. Mayor: The meeting will come back to order.
56. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: The chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to execute
the affidavit.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you have a report from our legal meeting?
Mr. Shepard: I do. I have some items that needed to be added and approved. I’ll
do them separately.
Mr. Mayor: We have one item already on. That’s the façade. That would
be item 47. That one item on 47. The wall on the façade grant.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That doesn’t need to be added.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we can take that one up now, if you’d like.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
47. Approve entering into commercial revitalization “Façade Improvement”
contract agreements for following project sites: 116-122 Ninth Street, 305-307 Ninth
Street, 32 Eighth Street, 429 Walker Street, 509-511 Broad Street, 670 Broad Street,
823 Broad Street, 512 Reynolds Street.
Mr. Mayor: With respect to item number 47 at 823 Broad Street. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission, I suggest a motion to approve the conveyance of the wall at the
Augusta Commons at 823 Broad Street to the R.W. Allen Construction Company as
the grantee and as a condition of the conveyance, that the grantee will finish the wall
in a compatible fashion with the requirements of our façade grant program, as the
96
grantee in that deed is also a grantee in the façade grant program and that there will
be release of all liability of Augusta from any liability that may be associated with
that wall as it is.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. You want to repeat that motion, Ms. Bonner?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, we have an add and approve.
Mr. Shepard:I would
Yes, sir, we do have two more add and approve.
request, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mayor Pro Tem, that you add
and approve a motion to reprogram right-of-way acquisition monies from the
Wrightsboro Road project to the acquisition of right-of-way in the St. Sebastian
project and that the Public Works Department and the county attorney be tasked to
write the appropriate correspondence to GDOT Commissioner Linnenkohl that he
add that St. Sebastian project to his state list in order to come up with the necessary
monies to finish the right-of-way acquisition, that we estimate that the Commission
will come up with some $600,000 and that the transfer and reprogramming from the
Wrightsboro Road project we estimate will yield about $5.4 million so that we could
complete that.
It’s done with the idea that we’ll also have the [inaudible] amended and
this will demonstrate the commitment of this Commission to qualify for the federal
monies that have been long held for that project, the St. Sebastian project.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a –
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
97
Mr. Mayor: And a second. Mr. Cheek, did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Cheek: I just want to add to that motion that we instruct staff to
immediately begin a parallel path of not only transferring the money from
Wrightsboro Road but looking for a funding source to bring funding to that project
to get it on line as soon as we can.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And also I think the minutes should
reflect that the project on Wrightsboro Road comes from District 3 and that Ms. Sims was
willing to relinquish this money so that we could move forward with the St. Sebastian
Way project and that she should be commended for doing that for this Commission and
saving that $15 million.
Mr. Mayor: And I think the record also ought to reflect the work of Bill Kuhlke,
our DOT board member, and Commissioner Linnenkohl who have been most cooperative
and most assisting to this body in helping to identify the funding necessary to complete
that St. Sebastian project. Certainly without their assistance and the ingenuity that they
put forward, the project would still be stuck and might even be dead, so we certainly
appreciate their assistance for this. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Shepard: A request of the Public Works director, she requests that we
add language that places the Wrightsboro Road project on hold until further notice.
Mr. Mayor: So that will be incorporated in the wording of the motion then. All
in favor of the motion as amended, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, would you make a note to yourself to notify
Congressman Norwood’s office in the morning of the action taken tonight? I know that
they’re following this very closely and they’d appreciate that. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:I would ask that we add
I have one other matter, Mr. Mayor.
and approve the resolution to non renew the present contract of Chief Gillespie and
instruct the Administrator to begin negotiations with that individual in the context
of continuing employment in a non contractual framework.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we need a motion to add and approve this item.
98
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion from Mr. Williams.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Who seconded? Mr. Colclough. Okay. Is there any discussion? All
in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly. This is not a reflection on the performance of the Chief.
It’s just an effort by this City to move away and administrative decisions to move away
from contracts with our department heads. Chief, you’ve done an excellent job.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. You’re absolutely right. You very well
expressed the sentiment of the body. Is there any other business to come before the
Commission? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? We’ve got one item on here.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to move with the order of the day? We can do that or –
Mr. Mays: The reason I’m saying, I’m not telling anybody how to dispose of it,
but we got people that have been here since two o’clock in terms of dealing with it, and I
think whether we take it off, whether we vote it up, whether we vote it down, we need to
at least out of courtesy deal with it.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Grantham.
ATTORNEY:
51. Discuss Memorandum Of Understanding Agreements (MOU) for the Sports
Arena and Amphitheater. (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, having been the presenter of agenda item 51, which
deals with the memorandum of understanding for the sports arena and the amphitheater, I
request to follow Commissioners that we withdraw that item.
Mr. Mayor: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw this item? No objection?
Mr. Mays?
99
Mr. Mays: I yield to Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I mean this has been placed on this agenda not just
today but on other agenda items and I think we need to go ahead and vote it up or down
and disband with this and get it off center.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Then we do not have unanimous consent to withdraw it
from the agenda. It’s on the agenda. We’ll call the item and we’ll move forward with
discussion on it. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, due to the late hour of SPLOST and the fact that we’re
two weeks away, I just encourage everybody. Let’s get these folks on board the team,
give them I guess a reason to go out and help us promote this in the effort to realize the
grand vision that this SPLOST can be for this city.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion with respect to item 51?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a motion that we deny, that we not approve a
Memorandum of Understanding for either the Sports Arena nor the Amphitheater at this
time.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion –
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: - that we vote on both on – and it’s the same one that I made at the last
meeting – that we vote on both of these items and that we vote on them separately.
That’s my substitute motion.
100
Mr. Mayor: And your substitute motion would be to approve these items, voting
on them separately? Is that –
Mr. Mays: No. It’s just to vote on them separately period. I mean I can – in
other words, they are down here together. The substitute motion I made at the last
meeting was to vote on them separately. I mean I’m not trying to tie anybody’s vote to –
Mr. Mayor: All right. So you’re not making a motion as much as you’re
procedurally on Mr. Williams’ motion, you’d like to vote on them separately?
Mr. Mays: No, I’m make a substitute motion. His motion is to deny. Mine is to
put them on the vote up or down separately on each one on its own merits.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. I thought they were on them together. Do we
have to have unanimous consent to withdraw?
Mr. Mayor: If the Commission wants to sever the two items, the Commission is
certainly within its discretion to do that.
Ms. Sims: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: But I just, I’m looking to the parliamentarian here. The way Mr.
Mays’ motion is worded, what a yes vote means or what a no vote means. Yes, you
support it or –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think you are going to have to separate them and then
vote. So I think –
Mr. Mayor: So the motion would be to separate?
Mr. Shepard: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: But not to vote, just to separate.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t see how you can do it any other way.
Mr. Mays: Whatever we did last time. We cast a separate vote. They were out
there. [inaudible] so I mean we had one. Whatever it takes to do that, I’m totally in
agreement with.
Mr. Shepard: I think the first motion then would be motion to sever the two
items.
Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion –
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] how we did it.
101
Mr. Mayor: So the motion is to separate the two items.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll take a motion to deal with each one of them
separately.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Well, now actually what we – I don’t have a problem [inaudible] what
I think we did with that, when I made the motion to vote on them separately, we voted on
them and I believe your wording from the chair was that we vote on them in the order
that they are written.
Mr. Mayor: Right. On the agenda. We took them in that order. Right.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] consult the minutes [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] we did this earlier on the wall in the motion that had all
the items bundled together [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] take them up separately [inaudible] approval or denial
separately.
The Clerk: [Reading] Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion that they be handled
separately. Mr. Williams seconded and we voted on them individually.
Mr. Mayor: So we severed them and then we voted on them individually.
The Clerk: No, we voted on them at that same motion. We voted on the
amphitheater and we voted on the arena. All of it was in one vote.
Mr. Grantham: We actually voted on whether to separate them, individually, and
both of them failed so we didn’t get to vote on them. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I tell you what, the chair will make a ruling. If I make the wrong
ruling, you tell me, Mr. Mays, cause you made the motion. The motion - was the motion
seconded?
Mr. Williams: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: The chair will make a ruling that the intent of Mr. Mays’ motion is to
separate the two items and then we will vote on each item separately if his motion
prevails. That’s the chair’s interpretation of the motion.
102
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with it.
Mr. Mayor: That sounds all right, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I have no problem.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Unless there is some discussion, we’ll go ahead and vote
on the substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: And take these up separately.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for wanting this is the fact that I think out of courtesy
and of business, it’s here and to dispose of it, and I just wanted to state this very clearly,
very clearly for the record. My, my support of what has gone into the SPLOST ballot, as
I said that morning or whatever time we left here, was to make sure that people had a
choice to vote up or down on whatever they wanted to do, on the items that were under
the main SPLOST ballot, as well as those other specialty items that were on the multiple
ballot, two, three and four. There were things that I questioned in reference to not the
project – and I’ve not really knocked anybody’s project and don’t plan to. My only thing
was I said that I would, I had problems with us, and I wanted to make sure that we did not
get into a bad contractual deal with anybody, be it the amphitheater, be it the arena, be it
be anybody. And those, that was where my line of questioning went, was totally into the
contents of the contract. And that was why I made that motion to separate before,
because there were problems there that I thought we needed to work out, but that had
nothing to do with the fact that would stop people from voting yea or nay on election day
for any of the projects that were out there. One, two, three or four. And I just wanted to
put that in for the record. That’s all my discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go ahead and vote on the substitute motion, which would
separate the two items. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote with the usual
sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims, Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion fails 4-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion from Commissioner
Williams, which is to deny the memorandum of understanding agreements for the sports
arena and the amphitheater. Is there any discussion on that motion before we vote? All
in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
103
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough and Ms. Beard abstain.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion fails 4-1-3.
Mr. Mayor: All right, would anybody like to make any other motion with respect
to item 51 before we move on?
Mr. Mays: Move we adjourn.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on October 19, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
104