HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 3, 2004
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 12:30 p.m., Wednesday,
November 3, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Joey Thompson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: Rev. Thompson, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the
Commission, we really appreciate your coming in and invoking [inaudible] in honor of
that, we name you Chaplain of the Day.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, I think we have another proclamation.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Proclamation
RE: Proud To Be An American
Ms. Jane Armstrong
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, today’s proclamation is in
recognition of “Proud to be an American” Month.
Whereas, the City of Augusta is proud to ensure that our children graduated from
high school with the basic knowledge of American history and a sense of pride for being
an American; and
Whereas, all citizens of Richmond County need to develop an understanding of
our country’s history, ideas, and ideals upon which it was founded and make those ideas
relevant to their lives today; and
Whereas, American Pride Through Education, Inc., a non-profit organization, has
made it its goal to provide teachers with ideas that will enhance the curriculum and to
make it relevant to students’ lives;
1
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
proclaim the month of November, 2004, as “Proud to be an American” Month in
Augusta, Georgia, and call upon all our fellow citizens, schools, churches, organizations,
business establishments and homes without official jurisdiction to display an emblem
symbolizing our pride in being an American.
In witness thereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
rd
Georgia to be affixed this 3 day of November, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
INTRODUCTION:
Capitol City Bank and Trust Company
Ms. Elmyria Chivers
Ms. Chivers: Good afternoon.
Mr. Mayor: Hi. Good afternoon.
Ms. Chivers: My name is Elmyria Chivers. I’m a realtor, associate broker at
Veterans Realty in south Richmond County. I have been in real estate for over 18 years.
I’m here as a community person to support an opening of a bank in our Augusta area,
which I happen to be fortunate in helping with the transition. George Andrews of Capitol
City Bank and Trust Company is an African-American owned and operated banking
institution. And while I talk about them, maybe I’ll get my husband to pass the fliers out
to the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give those to the Clerk, please, she’ll pass them out to the
Commission. Thank you.
Ms. Chivers: And I’ll wait until y’all get it. The flier. Capitol City Bank and
Trust Company’s main office is located in the Atlanta, Georgia area, with several branch
offices in that area. It’s also in Albany, Savannah, and now it’s opening in the Augusta
area at 1268 Broad Street. And for your benefit, it’s the old Wachovia bank building
th
right at 13 and Broad Street. Now that’s a good thing, because it serves several
purposes. Number one, it eliminates a vacant piece of property on Broad Street. It
provides employment for citizens in the Augusta area. And it also helps to promote
downtown growth. So there are some people here that I do want to thank, because I’ll try
to get around to some of the Commissioners, just to let them know that the bank is
coming, so we can have the Commission as well as the Mayor’s support. I thank
Commissioner Beard for her help in working with me on this, and I’ve also spoken to
Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Colclough. So I want to thank them, as well.
Now, on – could I pass another flier out, please?
2
Mr. Mayor: Give them to the Clerk. She’ll take care of that for you.
Ms. Chivers: On Wednesday, November 17, I would like the Mayor and the
Commission to join George Andrews, president and CEO of Capitol City Bank and Trust
Company at one of several receptions that we plan to host for him in this area, so he can
meet the Commissioners, the Mayor and receive their blessings. I also would like it, if at
all possible, that the Commission would have someone there on hand to greet Mr.
Andrews and welcome him into the community. Now this is not the first time I’ve been
before the Commission. And the first time I was here my husband and I was having a
drainage problem and you were able to help us solve it successfully under Commissioner
Cheek, and I thank you all for that. So I’m thanking you in advance for your support on
th
Wednesday, the 17 of November, and I would like to see each and every one of you
there. If there are any questions, comments, I would be happy to say something.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your presentation. Any questions? Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I would just like to say we’re looking forward to having this business
in our community. I think it’s going to be an asset to our area and if there is anything
else I can do, be sure to let me know, and I feel sure that it’s true of the Commission and
our Mayor.
Ms. Chivers: Thank you so very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s move on to our consent agenda. Madame Clerk,
any licenses or zoning you need to read out?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we have some alcoholic beverage licenses.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 27A.
For the
benefit of any objectors, under the public services portion of the agenda, I’ll read the
requests for the alcoholic beverage licenses.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve a request by Rita S. Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Shreeji Food Mart located at 1342
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 25, 2004)
5. Motion to approve a request by Michael L. Anglin for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Red Lion
Events located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be dance. District 1. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
6. Motion to approve a request by Andrew Warner, Sr. for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Rub It
3
Lounge located at 2706 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
7. Motion to approve a request by Padi Reddy for a retail package beer & wine
license to be used in connection with P Mart, Inc. d/b/a Raceway #703 located at
3309 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of these items?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Ladies and gentlemen, what is your
preference with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Would you like to amend the
motion by adding or deleting any items for further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move to add the addendum items that we
have, items 1, 2 and 3 to the consent agenda without – if there’s no objection.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek has asked that the three items on the addendum agenda be
added to the consent agenda, well, added to the agenda and then added to the consent
agenda. We need unanimous consent to do that. Is there any objection? None is heard,
so we’ll –
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Williams: I don’t have any objection, but I have not, I have not looked at all
three. I did talk with Commissioners Boyles on number 1 and from what he explained to
me I got no problem with it, and I probably have no problem with the other one, but I
would like to have the opportunity to at least look at them before I consent to them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: In addition to, one other item, item 34 from – request from
Downtown Development to make those appointments and also make those appointments
effective immediately, there’s some exciting things on the horizon. The seats that are
currently there are expired and so DDA has asked to go ahead and fill those seats and
make that effective today, and I’d like to have that added to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding item 34 to the consent agenda? Mr. Boyles,
you had your hand up?
4
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I do. Item 32, the Finance Committee was to determine
the source of funding for request of Shiloh Community Center. Our administrator tells
me that we have found that within the recreation budget, so it’s not an additional
contingency. I’d like to add that to the consent agenda, also.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding 32 to the consent agenda? All right. Do
you want to pull any items today? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wouldn’t want to deprive you of at least
having one discussion. And I don’t have a problem with it, but I do want to make
mention and let everyone know item 3 and I think it’s again on here, item number 11, I
think may be the same item, may be related.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: I do like to have some discussion on those two.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull items 3 and 11 [inaudible]. The chair would like to pull
item number 9.
Mr. Williams: One more, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 17.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, 17 for Mr. Williams. Anything further?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I would just like to get some clarity on item 25.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. Any others?
Mr. Hankerson: Like to pull 24.
Mr. Mayor: 24, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
5
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: On the – 27A, the rates and charges ordinance, we’ll have a clean
copy without the headers and footers that were in the book. I’ll produce that during the
meeting. Make no substantive changes, but it won’t go ahead with the headers and
footers. Those are editorial matters that will be taken out before it’s copied.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, just to make sure that I understand. You had, on the
addendum agenda, you had some questions about 2 and 3 but you were in agreement with
number 1, to add to the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: Right. I agree with number 1. Also, Mr. Mayor, if I can change
those numbers – [inaudible] 17. I’d like to pull item 22 instead of 17.
Mr. Mayor: You can pull both if you want to.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’ve got some clarification on that one, I believe, and I just
want to get some more clarification on item 22.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: So you’re not asking for 17?
Mr. Williams: No, I’m not.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, by my tally, I have the consent agenda as published,
minus items 3 and 11, 9, 22, 24 and 25, and adding to the consent agenda items 32, 34
and 1 from the addendum agenda. Is that your tally?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Did we miss anything?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Jennifer A. Green for a therapeutic massage
license to be used in connection with Therapy In Motion at Augusta Center 4
Massage located at 211 Pleasant Home Rd., Suite B-3. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Laurie Pratt for a therapeutic massage
license to be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504 Shartom
Drive. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 25, 2004)
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6
4. Motion to approve a request by Rita S. Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Shreeji Food Mart located at 1342
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 25, 2004)
5. Motion to approve a request by Michael L. Anglin for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Red Lion
Events located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be dance. District 1. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
6. Motion to approve a request by Andrew Warner, Sr. for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Rub It
Lounge located at 2706 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
7. Motion to approve a request by Padi Reddy for a retail package beer & wine
license to be used in connection with P Mart, Inc. d/b/a Raceway #703 located at
3309 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
8. Motion to approve the forfeiture of Surety Bond for Quintin Stribling Home
Improvement, 707 Fairwood Court, Augusta, Ga. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
9. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Daniel Eubanks under the 1949 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 25, 2004)
11. Deleted from the consent agenda.
12. Motion to ratify Augusta’s Fair Housing Action Plan. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 25, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Motion to approve additional Software License Agreement (see attached) for
the Sheriff’s Office to allow for the addition of fifty-four (54) MDTs. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee October 25, 2004)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Fuel/Lubrication Truck for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division for $119,850.00 from Fleetcare
Commercial Trucks of Augusta, Georgia. (lowest bid package for Bid 04-117)
(Approved by Finance Committee October 25, 2004)
15. Motion to approve holding a Public Hearing on FY 2005 Budget on
November 3, 2004. (Approved by Finance Committee October 25, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Number Two for the Windsor
Spring Road Phase IV (CPB # 323-04-299823766) & Windsor Spring Road Phase V
(CPB # 323-04-299823786) in the amount of $1,559,500.00 & $1,559,500.00
respectively be funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase III to allocate
7
additional funds programmed for these projects. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 25, 2004)
17. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two (CPB # 327-
04-296812003) in the amount of $3,060,000.00 from SPLOST Phase IV to allocate
additional funds programmed for this project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
18. Motion to authorize the execution of an agreement with KMC Telecom III
LLC (“KMC”) to provide telecommunications services to Augusta for the N. Max
Hicks – Tobacco Road Surface Water Treatment Plant. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 25, 2004)
19. Motion to allow Augusta Utilities Department to authorize Honeywell, Inc. to
proceed with Annual Automated Meter Maintenance Program at an initial cost of
$415,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 25, 2004)
20. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to prepare
prequalification packages and advertise “Request for Qualifications” through the
Purchasing Department for the Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant Upgrade
Project using the Construction Manager at Risk delivery method. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 25, 2004)
21. Motion to approve Lease Extension Agreement with Columbia County-Canal
Headgates Area. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 25, 2004)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with American Hydro
Corp. for the rehabilitation of Turbine Unit #4 in the amount of $730,500.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 25, 2004)
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
25. Deleted from the consent agenda.
26. Motion to approve renewal of the Technical Services Agreement between
Augusta, Ga. and Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. for upgrades and
maintenance of the Building Automation Systems at the Municipal Building, JLEC
and Charles B. Webster Detention Center, and Animal Control Center for a period
of five (5) years. The annual cost is $141,472 annually and is funded through the
general fund budget for each of these facilities. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
27. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 19, 2004.
ATTORNEY:
27A. Motion to approve an Ordinance to establish and adjust Augusta Regional
Airport’s airline rents and fees and other charges. (Approved by the Augusta
Commission October 19, 2004-second reading)
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
8
1. Consider abatement of taxes at 3410 Jack Kelly Road in the equivalency of
the benefit of an S-4 exemption for 2002 and 2003.
FINANCE:
32. Motion to approve a request from Shiloh Comprehensive Community
Center, Inc. for funding in the amount of $5,000 for their wellness and other
programs subject to the administrator identifying a funding source(s).
34. APPOINTMENTS:
Consider the following nominations from Downtown Development Authority for
new four-year terms:
Mr. Julian Roberts (reappointment)
•
Mr. John King (new appointment)
•
Addendum Item 1. Consider abatement of taxes at 3410 Jack Kelly Road in the
equivalency of the benefit of an S-4 exemption for 2002 and 2003.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda motion as amended, please vote
with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 1-2, 4-8, 10, 12-21, 23, 26-27A, 32, 34, Addendum Item 1.
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people who are here for items 3 and 11 from
the Airport Commission. Let’s go ahead and take that item up.
The Clerk:
3. Motion to approve salary increase for Airport personnel. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
11. Motion to approve salary increase for Airport personnel. (See background
information under Item 3 of Public Services agenda) (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 25, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked these two items be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I did. And I addressed this in committee as
well. I think they have the funds and I think they are ready to do what is needed, but I’m
worried about the other employees of Augusta-Richmond County. We know that’s a
separate fund that the airport is dealing with, but then employees don’t see it that way
when one group gets a raise. Here we are, my Finance chairman to my right, budget
time, we talking about making some drastic cuts. I think it’s going to be a [inaudible] if
anything else, Mr. Mayor, when we do this, and then we talking about cutting out some
programs, maybe even some, some positions. So that’s, that’s, that’s my comment. I
wanted to make that. I wanted the airport to know that I support them and I think they’re
9
doing well with what they doing. We know that the money is different, but the
employees are still the same, and when you got 2600+ employees that are around this
government and you give one group a raise and not the rest, I think you going to set up
something, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boshears, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Boshears: I can only say that the airport is – we recognize the problems that
exist and the obstacles that you have down here. We think a plus to it is that you are
showing where you have the opportunity to provide for some of the employees. You’re
taking advantage of it. We have some employees who fill sensitive positions as far as
experience requirements and knowledge requirements and it’s the belief of the
Commission and myself that we need [inaudible] increase that we’ve been [inaudible] for
some time.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we approve the item as printed.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Is there further discussion? All in
favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign. This would be items 3 and 11.
Mr. Boyles and Ms. Sims vote No.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Mr. Boshears: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I know we’ve got some people who were coming back today for
some of the zoning items, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: 28, 29, 30 and 31, so if we could, let’s move on to those.
The Clerk: 28?
Mr. Mayor: Start with 28.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
10
28. 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 (Deferred from
the October 19, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Where are we with this one?
Mr. Patty: This is one that I think Mr. Cheek asked to come back. The applicant
wasn’t here, and I don’t see him here today. But the [inaudible] of this is that there had
been a salvage yard on this property for some time and it’s been cleaned up. For the most
part it’s been cleaned up. And this applicant wants to fix trucks and paint trucks and
wash trucks, but he wanted to have a very small salvage operation, that he’d bring trucks
in and strip them and take them out, and he’s going to keep half an acre reserved for that
purpose in the back corner and he’s going to fence it. It wasn’t a great idea, but there
were no objectors. I noticed – we heard this the first Monday in October, and a week
before that you passed an ordinance relating to junkyards, salvage yards, recycling
facilities, and I’ve got to call your attention to a provision of that ordinance that says that
these type facilities have got to be ten acres or more, and there is no, apparently no
variance provision in there. This would probably fly in the face of that, frankly, so I
don’t know how you are going to deal with these type facilities where you do have
related salvage operations, along with other type businesses. But anyway. I don’t know
if the applicant is here or not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, not to deny this thing out of hand, but I guess I’d move,
since the applicant is not here, to allow him maybe one additional meeting to maybe
come down if it’s something that he’s concerned about. I just have a real issue with
reestablishing any type of salvage operation that close to the main corridor along Peach
Orchard Road. It’s a tremendous eyesore for all the years of my life, we got it cleaned up
now, and while the business I think is perfectly appropriate, opening another salvage yard
So I’d justmove that we continue this until
in that area I think would be inappropriate.
the next Commission meeting to give the applicant the opportunity to come in and
speak to his plans for the property.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: I second it.
11
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, in view of the comments from Mr. Patty, I wonder if
this item is even properly before us, if it’s in conflict with a City ordinance.
Mr. Shepard: Well, the alternative would be to vote to deny it. I spoke with Mr.
Patty, and we were –
Mr. Mayor: We can’t hear you.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry. I spoke to Mr. Patty about the matter just this. I would
support the motion because that was something I was not aware of. Otherwise, I would
ask you to deny it because I think it is in conflict.
Mr. Mayor: If it’s in conflict with the ordinance, then there’s really nothing to
approve or deny. It just dies on its face, doesn’t it?
Mr. Shepard: I think you need to, I think you need to deny it. Or in the
alternative, to continue it until next time.
Mr. Mayor: Maybe you can bring us a definitive legal answer to the question at
the next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: My pre-meeting discussions with the zoning matters, we didn’t
address [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: My concern about denying it at this time without further research is
that this approval process or rezoning request was begun before the ordinance was placed
on the books, and that may give them legal recourse to come back and affect the City.
Mr. Shepard: The safe thing would be to vote in the affirmative for the motion to
continue it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I couldn’t understand what Andy was saying.
Mr. Cheek: I’m trying to get better.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: He wants to bring it back to the next meeting to give the petitioner –
Mr. Smith: I wanted to say I had a meeting with this gentleman yesterday, Mr.
Bradford, and he has agreed to do the necessary fencing, and they were not going to have
12
a junkyard. That would be eliminated. And he’s very interested in trying to get
something going. Any way I can help get the groups together, I’d be happy to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Cheek.
Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is 29.
The Clerk:
29. 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 (Deferred from the
October 19, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, do we have a breakthrough in this item?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, we met twice with the [inaudible] neighborhood group and
after we met with them the second time they excused the applicant and me and they voted
to – apparently they voted to, well, they tried to decide whether to support or fight the
application. I frankly don’t know how that came out. Just background, this is obviously
a commercial building that was used for years by the applicant’s family to store
amusements and other general business uses. There was a two year lapse in licensing,
business licensing for the property, so when they came back with a car repair business it
would require general business zoning. They didn’t have it. They had neighborhood
business zoning. And the non-conforming rights accrued to the property had expired and
that’s why they’re here before you today. It’s got a salvage yard behind it and other B-2
uses in the area.
Mr. Mayor: Is the neighborhood represented here today? Ms. Clark, are you
going to speak on behalf of the neighborhood or do y’all have some other spokesman?
Ms. Clark: Mayor Young, county Commissioners, our count Commissioner
Marion Williams and Mr. Willie Mays, the Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association was
th
number 1 and 2, came together with the request about the rezoning on 15 Street/MLK
for a garage. We have garages in that area. We do not need another garage, and
especially on that corner. We would like something more tangible and beautiful on that
corner, since we have school one block away, Levi White and T.W. Josey to the left, and
traffic is entering into that area on their way to MCG, Paine College, hospitals. We need
a more beautiful area. We want our area to become a beautiful area, like Washington
Road. No clutter, broken down cars and tires all around the place. They say it will be
kept up, but past experience tell me a different story. These cluttered, broken-down cars
13
create a bad sight in our community. We voted on Monday, November 1, with Turpin
Hill 1 and 2, both voted no, with no opposition, the motion was carried. Again, we ask
you, our leaders, that you please vote no to this and that we will be a part of the city that
is called the Garden City of the South. The beautiful city, not cluttered with cars and
things around. The music building was nice and kept up fairly well. Please vote no for
the garage and we thank you so very much. Respectfully submitted, Rev. Larry Fryer,
president, in his absence, yours truly, [inaudible] Clark, vice president, Ms. Jackson,
secretary.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Clark. Mr. Dent, are you here on behalf of the
petitioner?
Mr. Dent: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from you and then we’ll take questions.
Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I’m Bud Dent. I represent the
petitioner, who is Joseph Norris. I’ve put before you a copy of my talking notes. I’ll
expand a little bit on that, but I think you have the basic points. This, of course, is a
continuation of your earlier hearing. This basic issue, it seems to me, before you is why
should you trust the owner of this property to keep it in good, presentable conditions in
support of the improvements in that neighborhood? And that neighborhood is improving.
I’ve represented the owners for almost 30 years. I’m familiar with the change of that
neighborhood. I think it is improving. I think my clients have contributed to that. The
owners of this building have owned it for about 40 years. That building has never been
an eyesore and the president of the homeowners association has testified to that. It had
offices in it and it was used as a shop to maintain or repair pinball machines, things of
that sort, over the years. All of which was done inside. To my knowledge, these people
have never stored anything outside. Very recently, a customer brought three cars there to
be worked on. The license was issued, by the way, and it was pulled, and that’s why that
took place. That person apparently filed bankruptcy. The tenant, the proposed tenant
promptly, as Mr. Marion Williams mentioned it, had those cars removed from that
property. The owners have always been supportive of this neighborhood. Mr. Teddy
Norris was a supporter of political, church and charity activities and leaders in this
neighborhood. Joe Norris, the present owner, the son of Teddy Norris, grew up on Olive
Road and is familiar with this area. He is very much – and as much as anyone else – a
citizen of that area. The tenant, who is seeking a lease from Mr. Norris, desires to
conduct an upscale auto service business, and the plan is not to be, nor has this place ever
been, a junkyard or a salvage yard. Neighbors have been, but this place has not been. It
seems to me [inaudible] heart of what I want to present to you. Mr. Joseph Norris is a
partner with two other men in the ownership, purchase, repair, refurbishment and resale
or operation of three businesses in this general area. Two of them are in this Commission
district, one I think is in Mr. Hankerson’s district. In 2000, they purchased five buildings
up on Walden Drive known as Walden Townhouses. That was a drug addict place.
There were two tenants out of the 20 units in those five buildings – four apartments in
each building. In August of 2002, they sold that and they had 18 or 19 tenants and there
14
was no more drug activity in that area. That is in Mr. Williams’ district, I believe, sir, it’s
in that area. And in August also of 2002 after they sold that, they, in a tax free exchange,
they rolled their money over into the purchase of what is known as Murphy Village, right
across the street from Murphy Junior High School. I think that has about 40 or 46 units
and they are in the process of continuing to restore those units and bringing the tenancy
up and they are enjoying success in that. They also in January of 2003, they actually – in
December of 2002, they began restoring, January they purchased what is known as the
Adams Inn Motel at the corner of Gordon Highway and Tubman Home Road. They have
been continuously working to restore the rooms in that building. It may not be all that
apparent from the outside, but they are restoring that to a tax-paying, productive facility.
Most of their tenants tend to be construction workers that are paid by the week and stay
for the week. It seems to me that – another thing. The board of zoning appeals, of which
I am the chairman, with me abstaining of course, unanimously approved this petition.
It’s my understanding that the zoning board has approved this on a 9-1 vote but I was not
there and I don’t – Mr. Patty can speak to that. It seems to me, the answer to the question
how can you be assured that this owner will keep this property up and continue to
improve it, is look at what he has done. My legal authority is Deuteronomy 18:15 – God
said to Moses I’ll raise up a prophet like you. And Moses said Lord, how will we know
that? And God said look to see what he does. Joe Norris is sitting here. He does
improve properties in primarily the area, this same area, he is a productive tax-paying
citizen of this community for all his life. He would like the opportunity to transfer this
property, the old Augusta Music Service, into a rented upscale automotive repair shop
and his tenant is a lady we have confidence will keep her word that she will keep that a
clean and neat place. We believe this will be a complement to the area. We believe that
because there are other automobile salvage and repair shops in the same area, it seemed
like there is a suitable and productive economic activity, and we would ask you to allow
this petition. I’ll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize [inaudible], Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I received that [inaudible] as well. But
let me just share a little background as well. First of all, we’re not here to try to put
anybody out. The revenue that comes in helps this government. But these citizens, who
from Turpin Hill 1 and Turpin Hill 2 have been living in conditions that’s not, not even
th
close to being what is right for people to live in. All around on either side of 15 Avenue
and MLK, across the street there is a auto repair shop that’s in disarray. Next door to that
is the [inaudible] but there’s another repair shop which is in disarray. On both sides of
this business that you looking at now is a junkyard. Not auto repair shop. Which is in
disarray. These people are living with rodents, and I’m not talking about the normal
rodents. I’m talking about large, and [inaudible] that travel from those jobs [inaudible]
invade into their homes, their properties. I spoke with you and I spoke with the property
owner to let you know that we’re in support, we don’t want to put you out, but the
neighbors who have stood up and spoke out against this – not just one, but both across the
street from you. I came by there on the way in today and there is a business that was
supposed to be a car lot. There’s a sign that says Easy Motors Cars or Easy Pay Cars.
There never been a car lot. They open for business right there. The business was
15
carryout food [inaudible] but it was my understanding if it didn’t [inaudible] to a car lot it
would revert back to the previous zoning that was supposed to been. But these people in
this community have been dumped on, not by you, not by your client, but by other people
for years and years and years. The creek that’s there now, that carry that foul odor up and
down those communities and all back in here. Mr. Patty, I might need some help from
you because there is a constituent who wanted to put a personal care home [inaudible]
Planning & Zoning and told that it may flood and they didn’t want it because it may
flood. What I’m saying to you is that we have had a lot of negative stuff to come in.
We’re trying to clean up. You said it yourself it looks better, it’s got a long way to go,
we’ve come a long ways. And I’m going to support the neighbors who, who come out
I’m going
and say they don’t want to have this type of business in that area. Mr. Mayor,
to make a motion that we deny this because of the community.
I wanted to work with
them and I explained to the attorney that if we could work together, find a way to
beautificate, beautify that area and show some beautification that we could put in, that if
the neighborhood wouldn’t have a problem, I wouldn’t have any problem. But since the
neighbors have spoke, Turpin Hill 1 and Turpin Hill 2 have come out. I went to a
meeting myself and the meeting was postponed on one afternoon. I think it was on a
Monday afternoon. And they ended up scheduling the meeting at a later date. But I’m
going to have to support the neighbors who live every day. Don’t just work there and go
And I’m going to make a motion that we
home. They live there. That is their home.
deny this
and move on to the next item.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion made and seconded. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Could you tell me exactly where this property is?
Mr. Dent: Yes, sir. If you go along Martin Luther King Boulevard coming from
th
Gordon Highway, or if you come out Twiggs Street, I believe it is, 7 Street, from
th
downtown area and go until 15 Street and Twiggs Street and merge into what is Martin
th
Luther King Boulevard now, right off to the left would be 15 Street that goes over near
thth
Levi White School. And that 15 Avenue, which is different from 15 Street. And it is
in that area that has had, as been said, a variety of – it’s a commercial area. There’s no
question. I don’t –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dent, let’s not argue it. He just asked you about the location of
the property.
Mr. Dent: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, go ahead.
16
Mr. Smith: Is this the original property where Mr. Norris has had his property all
along?
Mr. Dent: Yes, sir, for the last –
Mr. Smith: 30 or 40 years?
th
Mr. Dent: No change except he bought a couple of lots on the 15 Avenue side
and cleared those.
Mr. Smith: That’s next to Ken Daughtry’s property?
Mr. Dent: Ken Daughtry’s place is on Martin Luther King going south, yes, sir.
That’s the large [inaudible].
Mr. Smith: I don’t see how it could be any different from what is already there.
Ken keeps that place in pretty good shape. It looks pretty good all the time. Of course,
Mr. Norris and them has kept their place looking good over the years. It’s difficult for
me to see why it would be any different from what’s already there. And as far as the
neighbors are concerned, where do they live, Commissioner?
th
Mr. Williams: 15 Avenue, which is the direct street that this business located on
th
the corner of 15 Avenue and MLK. But let me respond just a little bit, Jimmy.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s let Mr. Smith finish.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just want to respond.
Mr. Mayor: And then Mr. Boyles wanted to speak. I’ll get back to you. Go
ahead, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: I just feel that if, the way the property has already looked for years,
not just one or two, but 30 or 40 years, it couldn’t be very much different than what
Fender’s Wrecking Yard is or the garage across the street and the service station that’s
been there all the time, that this could be a detriment to that location.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, and then we’ll come back to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Dent, have Mr. Norris and the citizens
sat down and gone over any kind of site plans or building plans to see just exactly what
they – could they work anything out themselves?
Mr. Dent: Commissioner, there are no site plans because it is as it is.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible]
17
Mr. Dent: We have met with them, yes. We’ve gone to the [inaudible]
gymnasium, the Savannah Place Center twice. We arrived after Mr. Williams had to
leave, so we rescheduled the meeting. And we met with them and offered our thoughts
on it and several members of the community were there, also, to participate in the
discussion. And we left according to the rules, and they voted – of course, we don’t
exactly except what they tell us here today. But yes, we have met with them, and we
have attempted to answer their questions. And we believe what we’re offering to do will
be a benefit to the community and to the neighborhood association and that whole area.
Mr. Boyles: So you and Ms. Clark tried to work out a compromise or anything
like that?
Mr. Dent: If someone could suggest to me what a compromise is on this, I don’t
know. There’s not a B-1-1/2 between a B-1 and B-2. I mean we’re certainly open. Mr.
Norris is not going anywhere. He’s been there all his life and he’s still there and he just
wants to continue to use his building for economy activity and Mrs. Peggy Miller has
come to him with an offer to rent it from him to operate a business which her son would
actually do the work in, the car repair service and so on. And we presented that
information to the leaders of the homeowners association.
Mr. Boyles: Is there anything that is outside? Is it all contained in that – I’m very
familiar with the building. I’ve been in it many times. I just wonder if there is anything
going to be outside or will it all be enclosed?
Mr. Dent: I hate to make promises of the future. I like to allow what my clients
have done in the past to give you an example of what they’ve done, and it’s consistent
[inaudible] continue to operate the same way. The expectation is that the building has
adequate space for five working bays to pull cars inside and work [inaudible] five and the
anticipation is that they could put three more outside, not on the street side, but on the
property. Am I saying that right [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Dent: So the anticipation is, first of all, they’ll be working on – they hope to
work on more expensive cars. Of course, it depends on what your customers are
bringing. But they hope to work on upscale cars and they belong they can take eight
motor vehicles out of the sight of the public on work on them and store them, so on. This
is not a salvage yard, this is not a junkyard. This is a place to repair [inaudible] motor
vehicles for customers, paid customers.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I told you I’d come back to you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A man of your word. Let me, let me just
say to Commissioner Smith that you are right, Jimmy, that it’s not going to make, it’s not
going to change this area at all. But we don’t want the same stuff that we done had for
200 years in that area. To put this back is going to be in addition to what’s already been
18
there. And this community have lived long enough with this type of growth. When we
build something or when we add something in certain communities, and we don’t want to
talk about south Augusta and west Augusta and the inner city, but you got to face those
facts. When you put stuff in certain areas, you don’t care what go there. But we had
folks to come and fight about a Dollar Store in south Augusta, a store, a brand new
building. They didn’t want it because it was going to bring their neighborhood down,
they thought. Now here we are with 200 years of history, of junk cars in there. There are
some cars that probably in the ground around there that been sitting there for long that if
you dug out – not in this man’s business but in the business next door to that. So the
neighbors don’t want it. As a Commissioner, I don’t want it. I don’t want it because they
don’t want it. And I’m asking you for your support in supporting what this community
has come out and said that they don’t want. Just because it been wrong for 200 years, we
don’t want to continue [inaudible] because people have, because neighborhood
association have come together and said we not going to take no more, we are tired of
getting dumped on. So whether it going to change, if it not going to make it better, we
got enough of the same thing that we been having down there. And I told this property
owner I’m not against them. He told me about his father. I remember when the business
was operating under the old pinball repair place and what was there. This is a small
corner, small area. There is no room. I went by and looked at it. There is no room to
really put any kind of beautification there. There is nothing they can do, really. So the
motion is out there. I got a second to it. Either we can vote it up or down, but I’m asking
me colleagues to support me because my constituents don’t want it. Not just one
neighborhood but two neighborhood associations.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further?
Mr. Smith: May I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Isn’t this the place that’s right next door to an existing junkyard now?
Mr. Dent: Well, you have mentioned Ken Daughtry’s place, an automobile
salvage yard, I think that’s what y’all call a junkyard. It’s not a junkyard in the sense
Goldberg’s was a junkyard.
Mr. Smith: I understand.
Mr. Dent: [inaudible] salvage yard as I understand it. How long Ken retains the
remains of salvage [inaudible] on his property, I’m not sure. But it’s an active salvage
yard. I’ve bought used car parts from there myself.
Mr. Smith: Commissioner, I’m not trying to get belligerent, but it looks like to
me anything they do there would be an improvement next to what is going on there
behind it there right now. I would hate to deny a new business to go in with employees
and taxpayers just because somebody don’t like the looks of it. I’m sorry.
19
Mr. Dent: May I make a statement?
Mr. Mayor: You had a question?
Mr. Dent: Well, I think the question is, if you don’t trust a prudent person with a
proven record to improve things, who do you trust? That’s the right person to put in that
place to continue to improve that neighborhood. And I say, he’s got a proven record,
which is current. Just within the last four years he’s done it in three other properties.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further, members of the Commission? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I guess to Mr. Patty, if I can get you back over for
just a moment. Let me say this before I ask George a question. I guess the rule of thumb,
and I’ve tried to be consistent on how we’ve done with respect to zoning changes,
alcohol, other changes that have happened in various neighborhoods, and many times
that’s a, that’s a, that’s a painful [inaudible] trying to be consistent from the standpoint
that usually some things may or may not work, and particularly if you have got good
ownership of a petitioner or a person coming in that just sometimes zoning itself can, can,
can be very, very fearful. And I’ve tried to respect those neighborhoods that I do
represent. That sometimes compromises can be worked, sometimes they can’t. I’ve seen
us change some recently to a point of where some things were brought, brought to light
and that eased some of the tension of what might happen in a particular neighborhood.
But I’ve lived by the rule of thumb that if those things can’t be worked, I’ve had to
support, to support those neighborhoods. But I got two questions, George. One, if, if
there is a change were there or could they have any reversionary stipulations placed in?
And I guess I’ve lived long enough in this building to a point of when we probably could
have done some of the zoning better some years ago, you know, when we couldn’t put
any reversions on what was there. You basically, you changed something. If it didn’t
work or if it went sour, you were basically stuck with it and something worse could come
behind it. And what I’m trying to find out, first, is whether, is this one where certain
restrictions could be put in?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, you could grant the use for the sole purpose of the auto repair
shop with a condition that it would revert back to the B-1 classification if it ceased or
anywise left.
Mr. Mays: And that’s not to say I’m going to change in reference to, to where the
neighbors may be going. But I need to ask this question. Probably to Ms. Clark. Would
there, and I’m just searching now, because I, like I say, I’ve been consistent with whether
it’s been neighborhoods that I represent by vote or whether it’s neighborhoods that other
Commissioners up here have asked me to support that I don’t represent by vote, and
we’ve had that unwritten rule to try and do that and to deal with that, but was there
anything within this plan, and I, I, I notice, Mr. Dent, obviously not like where you’ve got
a flat piece of land, if a building is coming or not coming, we’re dealing with the building
that we got there. Was there anything specifically that say was left unanswered or was
20
there anything that could have been added to this equation that if the neighbors would
have known, whether it was good, bad or indifferent in terms of what direction that this
might be going in reference to, to, to [inaudible] outside upkeep, what was going to be
there in the absence of say a site plan? But – and some type of rendition that could have
been done that may or may not have changed the feelings that were there in the
neighborhood? And I’m just trying to search for a question on that. Cause what’s in the
back of my mind, I, I know it, I know it can be used for some purposes now and that’s,
that’s, that’s, that can also be something that comes next to a point that we have to deal
with, and I guess what I’m trying to look for is, is with it being dormant for so long, you
know, is what we got on the floor, is it, is it the worst thing we’re walking into or could
we into a situation to a point under the zoning be with something obviously then that the
neighborhood may definitely not want? So I am just searching for [inaudible].
Ms. Clark: We discussed it. We would like to have another type business on that
corner. Not a garage. If you look at the garages we already have out there, we are
already trapped. And thank God, this new highway going to be coming through, I
th
understand. Off of 15 Street. And so that’s going to knock out all of those businesses
th
over there on 15 Street. So therefore, you’re knocking them out and then they want to
put one over on the right. We just don’t want any more coming up because they didn’t –
nobody kept up the ones that they had. The neighbors discussed it and we just say we
didn’t want another garage out there. If they can come up with something else that’s
more nicer, it would be nice. A community store, a [inaudible], drive-by restaurant or
something, but not another garage. We just do not want that in our neighborhood.
Because we already have enough out there.
Mr. Mays: You answered my question.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further?
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty, and I heard several times since I been on this board
where we have set up guidelines and said that if it is approved, that it can go back to its
previous zoning. In my five years now, I’m don’t want you to go back no further than
that, but have there been any cases where we went back and put properties back where
they was zoned before we approve the zoning on?
Mr. Patty: Yes, but I hope you’re not going to ask me to name specific cases,
because I can’t, but we have, to answer your question.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m – and that was my question, because I can’t remember
any. I know several. The one we talked about just across the street on the MLK side of
th
15 Avenue there. It’s got a provision that we approved while our attorney was on this
board as a Commissioner, Commissioner Shepard and I along with the other colleagues
21
approved to, to have a piece of property who was deemed a auto car sales, car lot. And if
it ceased from being that, it would be deemed back as the previous zoning. It never been
a car lot. The sign haven’t change. I told you on the way down here I looked at the sign.
The name, the same sign that’s painted over and wrote in something else [inaudible]. It’s
not a motor, it’s not a lot any more. But I just don’t remember any coming back that we
put those stipulations out there where we go out and say well, you not following the
guidelines, we are going to revert back to what we had at the beginning. And if you say
some, that’s fine. I don’t need the names, George. But if you say there are some, that’s
fine.
Mr. Mayor: All right, anything further? We’ll move ahead with the question.
The motion has been made to deny. All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual
sign.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
30. 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(Deferred
from the October 19, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, I think y’all had a summit on this one, too.
Mr. Patty:
We did, and I think I can report to you that this has been effectively
resolved. I don’t think you want me to go through all this, but if you remember a
conversation of a couple of weeks ago, there had been a problem with the odor out there
[inaudible] coming from Shapiro’s that was used in the mulch – I won’t say mulch –
compost. Compost. Compost that they were making. That was stopped when EPD made
Shapiro make some changes and then at some point [inaudible] stopped using this
ingredient in their mulch and they would like to start, they wanted to start doing that
again, and EPD asked us in order to make that decision whether it conformed with local
zoning and knowing that there had been a problem, even though it was zoned heavy
industrial, I wrote them a letter and said that it did not because they were using animal
parts or whatever the actual terminology was. And that triggered what’s before you
22
today. I met with the interested parties back a couple of months ago and we came up
with the idea of an agreement which nobody seemed to be in favor of. Reading tea
leaves. So we met again at your request and Mr. Patterson, who is here, may want to
speak to this, felt very strongly that we are making a decision by approving it with that
agreement and better course would be to just essentially back off, take the position with
EPD that at this time it’s not a zoning violation, but reserve the right to act later if it
became a zoning violation, and I could simply do that if you like by writing a letter to
EPD saying that at this time we don’t consider it to be this paunch manure and animal
byproduct, we’d have the right later to attack them through our nuisance ordinance and
also there is a provision in the zoning ordinance that requires a special exception if there
what we’re asking you to allow them to
is an odor problem, so I guess to sum that up,
withdraw this without prejudice. The affected parties I believe are satisfied that
they have acted responsibly and dealt with the odor problem and can do so in the
future and we would have the right to deal with it through zoning and the nuisance
ordinance if they did not.
Mr. Mayor: George, let me ask the petitioner, do you concur with what the
director has just said?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: You do? Okay. What about the objectors who are here? Are you in
concurrence with that? Okay. What’s your pleasure?
Mr. Mays: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and been seconded. All right. Anything further?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, a little discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just want to be clear that the neighbors and the petitioners –
cause I did talk with the previous owner and, and, and, and what are we doing this if we
approve this? That’s all I want to know. I want to be clear on what would actually
happen. George, I guess –
Mr. Patty: You are reserving the right in the future to take the action that you
could take today, and you’re accepting the applicant’s recent track record and their
pledge that there will not be a problem in the future.
Mr. Williams: Okay, now since there is an industrial area where they are, along
with the other plants and other facilities there, if there is an odor, how can we determine
whether it’s coming from Bricko or coming from one of the other plants, and then we,
23
we, we go ahead and act on Bricko? I mean I just, just want to get it clear, because there
is Columbia Nitrogen and Tennessee. I can’t think of the rest of them at that end,
George, but the neighbors need to be clear, they need to have an understanding. How can
we tell if the odor is going to be – if there is an odor next month, two months from now,
is there a distinction that we are going to be able to tell that it is – I mean –
Mr. Patty: Obviously, Marion, that’s going to be subjective. There is going to be
some doubt, but according to Roy Chalker who lives up there, there was no doubt when
they had this problem before. If you walked out on your patio, it would make you cry.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and, and, and George, I’m not fighting it, I’m just trying to
get – cause if there is an odor and it’s irritating and someone says, someone says it’s from
Bricko, they said it’s not, who’s going to determine? EPD? EPA? The inspector we
got? Send recreation director Tom over there? I mean how are we, how will we
determine? We need to go ahead and pursue what we doing now. That’s a simple
question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you indicated you have an answer to the question?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to say, Mr. Williams, you’d apply the smell test. And
I’m not being totally facetious there. I did talk to Mr. Patty about this, and there is a
doctrine of nuisance in our law, anything that [inaudible] hurt or injury to another is
nuisance. I would leave it – it’s very hard to quantify this smell. I mean you can
quantify sound and decibels, and that’s why I said I think we ought to just leave it and let
the common law of nuisance handle it. We also have a nuisance ordinance and I believe
that was the extent of our conversation, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, there is all kinds of analytical equipment that we could
use to determine the exact source of the smell, but the main thing, it goes back to what
the attorney said. Organic byproducts are a lot different in smell, taste, color and damage
than industrial byproducts so it should be pretty clear. If you look at the industries across
the street, you’re looking at ammonia and chlorine and other things that are noticeably
different than decaying organic matter.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. All in favor of that motion, please
vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, our final zoning carryover.
The Clerk:
24
31. 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(Deferred from the October 19,
2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: We met on this one, and unfortunately we could not, this one could not
be resolved. The neighborhood at the time of the meeting did not want it and the
applicants testified that they were going to spend about $20,000 fixing this home up, but
beyond that they really couldn’t do anything else to offset the neighborhood objections.
The Planning Commission did recommend it be denied from their October meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Ladies? Petitioner, you have –
Mr. Larke: Again, I am Leon Larke and I represent the Perrins. The Perrins are
here. As we said earlier, during the first meeting when this matter was brought up, one of
the problems was we couldn’t understand why this esteemed body would not approve this
particular exception, because you have promulgated the regulations and the Perrins have
complied with them. And generally when you promulgate rules or whatever and people
comply with them, we expect that you will act in a manner to enforce those regulations
that you have promulgated. And the assisted living facility have met the requirements of
the Section H, 1, 3, 4 of the zoning ordinance. We just didn’t understand it other than I
suppose there is a matter of [inaudible]. I know the neighborhood association didn’t want
the facility there, but we presented petitions that was accepted for the record whereby
there were a number of people, at least 70 people from the community, that did want this
facility. It’s an assisted living facility. I recall the last time we were here there was a
church that essentially had the same situation [inaudible] there were some people who
didn’t want the church. And what the Perrins are doing, we’re not talking about a
junkyard or anything of that sort. We’re talking about assisting people [inaudible] who
would live in this assisted living facility. And the Perrins are long-time business people
in this community. Good reputations. Zoning requirements have been met. They are
willing to put at least $20,000 into this facility. The parking requirements would be met.
And we just didn’t understand it. I know that there are people who disagree, but as I said
there are folks who support the Perrins. And we’re asking that you support them as well.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any people from the neighborhood who are here today?
Who have come for this item, either for it or against it?
(7 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Stanley, did you want to speak?
25
Mr. Hawes: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can you pull that mike up and speak into it in so Mr. Smith
can hear you?
Mr. Hawes: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think our last meeting in these chambers
was concerning this same situation. We was here and that was with Planning & Zoning
and Mr. Patty. I come in representation of that particular area. I basically, you know,
[inaudible] transition center, our community always decided we would always see things
out. You know, some things happen in a community that you want, some things that you
don’t want, but you try to be reasonable in whether you’re going to fight something or
whether you’re going to be for something. We had the meeting in Mr. Patty’s office. I
think you all sent it back to try to see if we can agree on something. At that meeting,
there was no agreement. Also, try to extend that even farther, because I was the only – I
think Ms. Armstrong was in representation, also, of the community, and she [inaudible]
Planning & Zoning also. She was at that meeting. So we was in representation of the
neighbors. We, we didn’t come to any type of agreement there, so our position still
stood. Secondly, basically tried to go even farther so that the Perrins could actually meet
with the people who would be directly affected by this. And I had about three of the
neighbors from the immediate area to come out and we came out and we sat yesterday,
trying to make sure that we did the right thing. Basically they couldn’t come to an
agreement. I [inaudible] from my position, which I’m always the bearer of good news
and bad news for that community, and I stand by those people because the things like,
you know, like Mr. Williams said, Commissioner Williams said, kind of [inaudible] of
Turpin Hill. Hopefully, that y’all would take into consideration some of the things that
have been happening in Laney Walker community. And I know this is just a special
exception, but for the people of that community that have to live with it, I would hope
that you would take consideration. Also respective of Mr. Patty’s recommendation and
the vote by Planning & Zoning that it do be denied. We still stand by our position in
[inaudible] with that.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions, comments from the Commissioners?
Someone like to make a motion?
Mr. Larke: I’d like, if I’m in order.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have some new information?
Mr. Larke: I’d like for Ms. Perrin to have a word or two if that’s in order.
Mr. Mayor: Is she going to tell us something you haven’t already?
Mr. Larke: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, go ahead.
26
Mr. Larke: About specifics in reference to what the Perrins plans would be for
this particular piece of property.
Ms. Perrin: Yesterday when we met, it was pretty hard to reason with them about
the future plans, because they want to live on the past. What went on at this property
without our consent and knowledge, so we were unable to even discuss the future plans.
I have no control over the past. I can only look forward to the future and trying to
prevent the past from reoccurring. And this is the reason why we really would like to get
a personal care home there instead of going back to leasing this property out to other
people.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to move forward with this.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me ask a question to follow up probably on something that
had come up with our regular Monday session. Was there any discussion, and I guess I
direct this to the petitioners. Mr. Hawes could answer, but since the petitioners are doing
it. This is not so much in terms of the meeting where you all were, but just in terms of
for information. On the, on doing the personal care, I remember prior to us sending you
all back to meet, there was a – and not to hold you to the exact wording of the earlier
minutes, but just in [inaudible] what we’re talking about, I know the question of the two
story situation came up and of the type of patients, whether or not they had accessibility
and how that was to be done. And I know when I had some conversation with
neighborhood, that was one of the things that came up. Did, was that talked about any?
Because probably in my own mind, that was one of the things I was kind of wrestling
with in terms of how, you know, in terms of dealing with that from – whether it be from
ADA standpoint or even from the point of positioning patients, certain types of patients
as far as their being able to be mobile or immobile and of placing them in either first
story category or second story, or whether staff would be in one place and patients
[inaudible]. How was that – did y’all have any conversation about that side of it? Cause
after we sent y’all back to meet, we kind of didn’t really go into that so much because we
figured maybe y’all would probably be talking about that with neighborhood, and I know
that was one of the interests that some of us had at that time.
Ms. Perrin: Yes, sir, Commissioner Mays. We did go into that. I did. I spoke
with them and gave them a number if they’d like to call the Georgia Department of
Human Resources. After their concern, I myself took it upon myself called to see if there
would be a problem with them okaying this type of facility and they said no. There is a –
presently there is a personal care home that is two story and it’s being operative pretty
safely. There will be clients there that need assisted living, no wheelchair bounds or
anything like that, and I reassured them of this yesterday. But they just want to stick to
the previous tenants and not really listen to anything I have to say.
27
Mr. Larke: If I might, I just add that this facility will be regulated by the Georgia
Department of Human Resources and just in my own personal practice, I know that over
the years I’ve represented as a parallel matter any number of people who were in need of
assisted living and have been provided that assisted living facility wise through Georgia
Regional. And they’ve been living at the Bon Air and other places that certainly have
been more than one floor. I don’t think that from a regulatory standpoint is that, that
would be a matter that would prohibit the type of facility that we’re speaking of from
being in operation.
Mr. Mays: I agree with you, I mean it can be more than two stories, maybe three,
four or five, but I think what the Commission was somewhat concerned about just in the
conversation piece was in terms of the access.
Mr. Larke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: And I didn’t – I heard you, I think it was mentioned of the fact that in
terms of patient, you know, selection, and I kind of refer to my, my ADA attorney to my
left and tell him to give me advice on certain things. But in reference to how, without,
you know, selective but without being discriminatory at the same time, once opened,
were you going to be able to manage that and deal with the two stories if they were going
up and down the steps physically?
Mr. Larke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: I know some of those places where they multi-stories, they can go up
and down but then they got elevator access and they’re not walking.
Mr. Larke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: That was where we had a concern in terms of doing that.
Mr. Larke: Yes, sir, in this instance – I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Where were you selecting, your patients come from? You
mentioned Georgia Regional. Where would you be getting your patients?
Mr. Larke: I mentioned Georgia Regional in the context of my past history in
representing.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, let me ask the Perrins. Where would your patients come
from?
Ms. Perrin: Well, we would have organizations that we get to interview the
patients.
28
Mr. Colclough: Which organizations is that?
Ms. Perrin: We have not gotten that far, because we have such a hang-up here,
you know.
Mr. Colclough: You haven’t made up your mind which type of patient that you’ll
be getting?
Ms. Perrin: We have made up our minds, it’s just that we did not anticipate
having this much confusion.
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask the question again. Which type of patient would you
be looking to put into your assisted home? You said assisted living. That can mean a lot
of things to folks. I mean the patients could be wheelchair bound, they could be
ambulatory, they could be non-ambulatory. There’s a number of areas that assisted living
comes under.
Ms. Perrin: We do have access with one bedroom downstairs if we do need to get
a wheelchair-bound person. We could have one without any prejudice.
Mr. Colclough: Well, I was basically referring to were you looking at MH
patients, MR patients, SA patients? That’s what I was trying to get at. Those type of
patients I’m talking about. You know what MH is; right? Mental health patients.
Ms. Perrin: Well, not necessarily.
Mr. Colclough: Mentally retarded patients.
Ms. Perrin: We were looking for once that need special assistance with cooking
and being able to assist them with medications, just helping them with everyday living.
Like I said, we did not go any further in looking into these organizations that’s there to
supply is with customers, you know, with residents because we haven’t gotten over this
part of it yet. But we do anticipate getting ones to give them assistance.
Mr. Colclough: You can get patients from a number of patients. The VA
supplies patients. I’m trying to figure out – because you do have a two story building,
and that will present a liability to the type of patient that you’ll be getting. That’s what I
was trying to figure out. The type of individual consumer that you’re looking for. If
you’re talking a two-story building, if you’re talking – and you’re saying assisted living,
there could be anyone who could need assisted living learning how to cook, but if you’re
going to target a specific population, just get some kind of sense of the liability that you
may be looking at.
29
Mr. Larke: [inaudible] who are ambulatory in the sense that they would not be
bedridden or in need of motorized wheelchairs, that kind of thing. But we would be able
to, with the Georgia Department of Human Resources –
Mr. Colclough: The Georgia Department of Human Resources is not going to
supply you with patients. I can tell you that.
Mr. Larke: I understand.
Mr. Colclough: They’re a regulatory agency, licensing. [inaudible]
Mr. Larke: We’re talking about patients that will be able to walk up the stairs and
down the stairs, since that is one of the main concerns, since this is not a facility that has
elevators in it. But at least patients who would be able to perform those kind of things.
Mr. Mayor: The Planning Commission has recommended that the petition be
denied. If it’s the will of the Commission to proceed forward with this, I would
recommend that if you want to approve it, that you add a stipulation to that approval that
requires the petitions to make and maintain the home complying with ADA requirements,
and then there wouldn’t be any question about whether it would be safe for people to stay
in there. And they would have to show that it’s certified with those ADA requirements.
That would be my recommendation. If it’s the choice of the Commission to approve it.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission is to deny and we’re open for a
motion.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask Mr. Patty a question again, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Did y’all get, ever get into that level of discussion, George, in
reference to a two story facility, of bringing it up to ADA standards? Cause I think one
thing that needs to be clear to the petitioners. A lot of time we get the facilities and
obviously in terms of wanting to make sure that we’re not just be arbitrary when certain
things are laid out, but in so many cases we get them without knowing where it’s going
once it leaves us. And when there are concerns, we try and face them so that if
something, God forbid, does happen down the road, then the city obviously does not
want to put itself into a position to say well, then, you were the local agency that did
[inaudible] without asking certain questions [inaudible] in there, and that was one of the
things we were talking about the other morning.
Mr. Patty: Well, I think the neighborhood is pretty clear that they just don’t want
it period. And I think the applicant was also clear that they would bring the house in
conformance with all codes, ADA, whatever. I don’t think that’s the problem. I think
frankly, the attorney and I were just talking about how much we need to say on these
issues, and my advice was not to say a whole lot. But these are uses that everybody
recognizes a need for and nobody wants it in their neighborhood, frankly. I mean we’ve
30
heard hundreds of them since 1986 when we got thrown into this game by Human
Resources when they started requiring a letter saying that conformed with local zoning.
There’s no good way to do this. There are objective criteria which Mr. Larke has cited.
There’s a 1200 foot spacing requirement between these uses so that the neighborhood
can’t become saturated with them. They meet the 1200 foot spacing requirement. They
have got adequate area for parking a few cars. So they meet the objective criteria. There
are some subjective criteria about the high crime, whether or not it’s a high crime area.
Traffic issues. Other issues such as that. And that’s where I think you’ve got the ability
to do whatever you want to do here, but there’s no middle ground. We tried. They’re
willing to fix the house up and meet all the codes. The neighborhood doesn’t want it.
The Planning Commission felt that it rose to the level of denial on the subjective
standards and that’s about all I can say.
Mr. Mays: Well, one thing that came up in our discussion the other morning in
reference to the full ADA standards was the fact that there can be a difference in terms of
improving a facility or building. But then there can be a different level of where you’re
going with certain ADA requirements. I mean I think we found that out within
governmental buildings to a point of what, what’s been done and what needs to be done.
And that’s why we even talked about that. My concern further was that in that area, and
this is one of the things I brought up with neighborhood presidents, is that if in denial,
and this is one of the reasons I wanted them to have had a conversation, if in denial in
which there are reasons there that the Planning Commission feels that it should be denied
and we move with it and obviously the petitioner has other recourse, they can deal with
something different, I was still concerned about a building that if the neighborhood had
had problems with previous tenants being there, whether or not the question before us
was going to be whether we were moving up in something that they could live with and
would better it, or are we moving back to a situation of where we get into an open
rooming house situation or we get into tenants to a point of where it becomes something
else of a negative [inaudible], and that was why, you know, Mr. President, I had that
conversation with you in reference to trying, where y’all could try and explore what
comes next. Because I mean obviously we can probably grant a denial in dealing with it
but I had concerns to a point that it wasn’t going to [inaudible]. The house is going to be
there and somebody was going to come next in it. It either going to be there, we’re going
to have to do something with it [inaudible] becoming something of an eyesore. Or you
end up with a bad tenant to a point cause if they are not going to be able to control
behaviors to a point absent – and that’s why at one level of concern that we might, if
there was a gleam of hope in there of some supervised behavior over something as
opposed to a non-supervised situation, and that’s why I kind of wanted y’all to talk. But
again, it gets back to one of those things I can respect the neighborhood’s wishes, I can
respect the wishes of the regulatory board in terms of dealing with the denial, but it’s
always something that’s going to be there if it’s going to be a building there. And I think
we need to look at the wholeness of it to a point that you’ve got that to, got that to
consider. That’s why I just wanted to, was hoping y’all would have a full and open
discussion with where that went. Sometimes, Mr. Mayor, the compromise we set out
may work, sometimes they don’t work, and so that’s kind of where we were. But I
31
thought your suggestion the other morning in reference to moving [inaudible] might be
something that they may would want to consider other than just regular improvements.
Mr. Mayor: Stanley?
Mr. Hawes: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make it clear to this body so that they
would know basically on what grounds we stood on, as far as from our position. And I
repeat that. Our position is based off of the location, based off of the structure, based off
of the complexity of the [inaudible] in all due respect to special exceptions, that particular
area is already [inaudible] trying to move the multi-family complexity of which had
gained to be prominent over residential [inaudible], just like all residential 1-A
communities, that’s in a more protected area than in our area. We’re a walk-through,
drive-through community. There have been a lot of things been put down in our
community. All we have been trying to do for the past several years is regain that
complexity of what it was, to be dominant in residential 1-A. That was one of the
stronger points. Those same people are homeowners who actually pay their taxes down
here, who actually vote, who we call partners in the city. We lost a lot of that. That’s
what we tried to gain back, to become a viable part of the city. That was part of the
overall plan we thought the city was involved with. Thus we had all the revitalization
process going on. So when we put all those pieces together to form a puzzle, to create a
direction in which we was going, everything was looking good and the community was
feeling good about it. But we run into a very strong [inaudible]. Even after this,
regardless of whatever the vote is, I would hope that this body would allow us to come
back because I think in my community there will still be a problem of people coming in,
speculators coming in, doing things that they feel are right and then when people who
cam make that decision, who have to make that decision over us that may not get the
whole piece of the puzzle and see everything the direction that it’s going, and might miss
something and decide that we’ll vote for this or we’ll vote for that. I would only ask that
you remember 15 years ago we wouldn’t have had this conversation, we wouldn’t be
down here. 15 years ago, it probably would have just passed right through, because any
time somebody came down in this area and wanted to do something, they just about could
do it. We only trying to protect the inner sanctities. And for the record, the final
statement on that is, is that let it be known that we do not, the Laney Walker
neighborhood area is not so much as we don’t want a personal care home per se in our
area, is that we need to gain some particular location, arterial locations and such that we
can allow for some of these things to take place, such as any other viable community.
Because you put one place over here, one place over there, you’re going to have all of
these same type of mixed use things, and we just simply trying to live like everybody
else, to have that, to have everything lined up to where it would, it would not be
[inaudible] residential area. I mean it’s just that. You know. It’s just basic. I mean
that’s all it is.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion so we can move this item forward.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to concur with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
32
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I second it to get it on the record, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second to concur with the
Planning Commission to deny the request for the special exception. Is there any further
discussion on the motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you want to say something?
Mr. Mays: Yes. What is the time frame, George, in reference to their
reappearing?
Mr. Patty: Six months for something other than what they’re applying for today,
or a year for the same we’re now discussing.
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me, let me ask, let me ask the president this, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: And I [inaudible] what I am seriously concerned about a question we
talked about the other night, what’s going to happen with this piece of property in there?
They can, we can do the denial now and then we end up with something else [inaudible]
and I’m going to be consistent. A neighborhood situation, I’m going to support that,
where we are. But I’m still concerned about the fact that the building is not disappearing
and moving. Going to be there. Somebody is going to be in it. Is it going to be worse?
Is it going to be better? Do we – we can do this and deal with the same thing a year from
now and it stays empty or is it something you all want to continue any dialogue with
them about in reference to their plans of where they’re going?
Mr. Hawes: I talked to Mr. Patty and you know, this is all done without
prejudice. I talked to Ms. Perrin and I extended her these, that regardless of how this
situation turn out today, and both she and I agreed to stay in contact with one another. I
think to begin with that’s where some of the problems started with because there hadn’t
been communication between – and I put it like that – the owner and some of the people
in the immediate area. Now that she know that there is a neighborhood association in
Laney Walker, as always if there is something that she need help with and if there is a
problem, she will always be backed up in assistance that we can offer her. Speaking on
record, coming from the neighborhood association, to be vigilant in our approach to assist
her in those matters or helping see what’s the best use she can do with her property. And
that’s also in the area of – with her cooperation we will definitely back her up on what
her endeavors would be, if it’s consistent, and we can communicate that and be on the
same page.
33
Mr. Larke: May I make one final statement?
Mr. Mayor: If it’s new information.
Mr. Larke: Well, it is, in that tailgating on what was just said in reference to the
neighborhood association saying what the Perrins can do with their property. There is no
covenant nor contractual relationship between the two.
Mr. Mayor: We understand that.
Mr. Hawes: I didn’t say that.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have the question on the floor. Mr. Mays, you wanted to
continue? Just a moment, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if you feed one member of the community, you need
to feed all.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, on talking with the city attorney, I’d like to maybe
make a substitute motion that we receive legal advice on this in reference to - under
real estate - or we can either take a motion to table.
Whichever gives him better
latitude to do. I can make the motion based on that recommendation.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask you to table it, Mr. Mays, and that we take a part
of our – there is potential litigation here.
Mr. Mays: I make the substitute motion accordingly, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to table has been made and seconded. Motion to table is
non-debatable. All in favor of the motion to table, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
34
Mr. Mayor: We have previously scheduled a public hearing on the budget, which
we’ll take up in just one moment. Mr. Beck has to leave and so I want to move to
number 9, Madame Clerk. While we take up item 9, if there are any people in the
chambers who are here for the public hearing on the budget, the Clerk has a sign-up sheet
and I need you to come sign up on the sheet if you’d like to be heard during the hearing.
All right.
The Clerk:
9. Motion to approve the privatization of the Augusta Marina. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 25, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: I asked that this item be pulled but I just wanted to say this is
something I think we should have done a long time ago and I’m glad we’re at this point.
There were two issues that we discussed previous to the meeting today that I wanted to
advise the Commission on, and that is I would ask you to – could we have order in the
chamber, please? There is only one meeting going on in here at a time. That is, that we
amend the contract to allow the city to charge a fuel flow fee at some future date when it
becomes economically feasible to do that. You need that type of reserve to replace
pumping equipment and what not. And also I asked Mr. Beck that we make sure all the
delinquent fees are collected prior to turning over the marina to the contractors because
we would lose our leverage at such time to collect those fees.
Mr. Beck: And Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, both of those
ingredients are now part of this document. The owners, Mobile Marine, Inc., the owners
are here. Mike and Rick Stacey. They have agreed to a fuel flow surcharge as part of
this, at three cents on the initial term of the contract, three cents per gallon as a fuel flow
surcharge on that. And Commissioner Mays, you had a couple of issues at committee
that we have added to the contract, one being – most specifically you had an issue on
making sure the fee system was established at the time of the contract. That is now an
exhibit as part of it, as well as their being a stipulation that any fee changes will have to
be pre-approved, as well as any other changes to the marina operations, and that is now
part of the contract.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a question?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I share your concerns about collecting those
outstanding fees that’s out there and I’m kind of wondering, though, how we let them get
by this long and now we going to be able to collect them before we turn it over to
somebody else? If our collecting process fixing to be changed, we may not need to do a
contract, we just to maybe change our collecting process and maintain it our self. How is
that going work?
Mr. Beck: I think I can respond to that. Number one, when we took the marina
operation over, the outstanding debt balance for collections was approximately $13,000.
It’s $3,000 now. So we’ve made a lot of headway in collections of outstanding debt
35
there. The issue here is at the time of the lease, if in fact there is a $3,000 balance, any
boat owners that do owe an outstanding balance will not be allowed to be a slip holder
with the new lease tenants. They will be ours until we get the city’s fair share of what’s
owed us.
Mr. Williams: Tom, how long is this lease for?
Mr. Beck: Initial two year term, with an option to renew. There is an out clause
for both sides within the agreement.
Mr. Williams: And the out clause is?
Mr. Beck: 30 days.
Mr. Williams: Notifying 30 days.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not evergreen.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And that’s why I wanted that made clear, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Beck: No evergreen.
Mr. Williams: In committee we talked about this, and Commissioner Mays
brought a point up and said I thought it was very valid, very good point, that it came up
from being bad to good, and now that it’s good we fixing to privatize it. Look like if we
was going privatize it we would of done it when it was bad, when we really was at a loss.
But for us to bring it up to $3,000 out of all the money that was owed, now we going to
outsource this to a private firm. Not knocking on this particular fund or anybody else. I
just think that the thing that we were doing looked like they was working. I’m, I’m a
little, little confused about how we can get to this point and be real good and then go out
and privatize it and can’t continue to what we were doing and get it back on even keep.
$3,000 is a long ways from where we was in the hole. So evidently what we was doing
was working.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if I could respond to that. The marina operates at a
deficit. You help me with this, Mr. Beck, and by privatizing this we’re transferring that
operational liability to a private contractor, and it’s up to him to make it work so that he
can make his profit. If we keep it in-house, then we’ve got to hire the people, we’ve got
to pick up all the expenses, and traditionally the income down there, even though there’s
been a poor job of collecting it, if it had been collected at its maximum rate it still would
not have been enough to sustain the operation without a subsidy. So what we’re doing is
taking something that loses the city money into something that we’re going to get a check
for every month for a positive operation. If I mischaracterized it, please correct me.
Mr. Beck: I think that’s an accurate characterization. Although we have gotten
the operation back where it’s about breaking even now, but I wanted to make this very
36
clear, and I think I did in committee, that we’ve taken over this operation without any
additional assistance. It’s been an operation that was put on us with no other
management increases in any of the staff to continue operating, and to keep service level
the same in our department I’m going to need some help there. And that’s going to
contribute to a deficit in this operation. And again, at some point something is going to
go lacking in recreation and parks if we continue taking on these additional services
without the proper management to take care of them. So this was something that you as a
Commission asked us to look at, was the privatization issue. We have done so. We do
feel like we’re bringing to you a valid agreement to move forward, and so it’s a policy
decision on your part from here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I just could respond. And I understand exactly
what has been said. I hear what Tom is saying as well. I made the statement before in
committee, I’ll make it again, that we’ve got to get a handle on the group that came
down, the watchdog groups so to speak, you know, asking questions about – I mean how
can other private firms do business with people and monies and material but we got
people and money and material but we ain’t doing it? Somebody ain’t doing something,
whether it be in this government or whether it be in the private. Now if – that’s
something I don’t understand because if it working with people and money and a place,
we got people, money and the place, it ought to be working with us. So I don’t
understand. Either something we’re not doing or something we are doing. And that’s not
just with the arena [sic]. That was several entities that we got. We talk about the money
situation. My Finance chairman over here quiet, but we going to have to get really
serious in a week or so. So if they can make money but it going to cost us to run it
because of Recreation and their staff, so they got a machine or they got a computer they
going run it with, they don’t have employees, they don’t have people that we got.
Something ain’t the same. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. We going take a vote [inaudible]
discuss it, but you know where I’m coming from.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I was just going to say, Mr. Williams, there are some things the
private sector can do better than government and this appears to be one of those things
where the private sector can do it and we’ll make money off it by letting the private
sector do it. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to approve with the
amendments.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: I seconded it.
Mr. Colclough: Before that motion was taken, I was –
37
Mr. Mayor: I move around as quickly as I can, Mr. Colclough, [inaudible] faster
than other times.
Mr. Colclough: I just wanted to ask a question. There were changes made to the
contract; is that correct?
Mr. Beck: The only thing that you don’t have in front of you is the issue on the
fuel flow charge that they have agreed to.
Mr. Colclough: Shouldn’t that have come back to us prior to we taking a vote on
it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, were you going to respond to that?
Mr. Shepard: I was of the understanding this was a conceptual approval today –
excuse me, a consensual approval today. I understood from the Monday meeting that
there was going to be an additional [inaudible] fuel flow fee. I think we do that at Daniel
field, air field. And so my recommendation is that you either approve it subject to the
approval of legal, or that you allow this to be a conceptual action today and certainly
we’ll have the five cent fuel flow added.
Mr. Beck: Actually three cents.
Mr. Shepard: Three cents. Okay, I’m sorry. Three cents. Because I didn’t know
if there were going to be any other amendments to come forth to amend the contract. I
can’t read your mind, and so therefore it seems to me you could run it back through
Public Services or just retain it on the full agenda here for two weeks.
Mr. Colclough: I have no problem with the company taking over the contract, but
I have a problem with approving something, a contract, that I haven’t read. People make
changes in contracts. We need to see it and we need to vote on the whole contract rather
than coming in here and telling me that you’re going to add this and you’re going to add
that. I think they can do a good job with this boat thing, probably going to take mine
down there. But I need to find out before I vote on something that’s going to be made
into a contract. We’ve [inaudible] before.
Mr. Mayor: We can bring the final version of the contract back in the next
meeting, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine. I don’t intend to vote on a contract [inaudible] .
That’s just my opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Sure. Anything further?
38
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my recommendation would be that the maker of the
motion, I think you are, Andy, amend it to be a conceptual approval today and be back in
two weeks.
Mr. Cheek: That’s fine.
Mr. Boyles: Did you get a second on that?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, the motion was seconded. Is there any objection to amending
the motion? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Mr. Mayor, just to receive some information. A substitute
motion may be in order in regards to the contract itself, and that is that Dr. Nechtman,
who is the chairman of the Authority, had asked that this contract not be approved today
I’m going
until he could review it after the discussion that was made with our attorney.
to make a substitute motion that we have already approved in concept –
The Clerk: Privatization is what he said.
Mr. Grantham: - that for privatization for the marina company, but based
on his request I think we owe him that duty to hold off on approving the contract in
form today.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Next meeting?
Mr. Grantham: Until the next meeting.But in
I think that would be in order.
concept we’re approving the privatization of the business.
Mr. Mayor: They can meet with him over the next two weeks.
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and motion of the substitute motion. Any
discussion on that?
Mr. Boyles: How many people we got running the marina? We got recreation,
we got the Port Authority, we got a group wanting to, we’ve got the administrator’s
office. How many people are running it?
Mr. Grantham: You want to?
39
Mr. Boyles: I might be the only one left to do it. I mean we’ve waiter here to do
this and then we’re going to wait for Dr. Nechtman to read it.
Mr. Grantham: Well, he was in agreement with it, you know, when he came and
presented it at our meeting the other day. And I think just out of due respect, which we
do that for these department heads as well as people that are on these boards that we
assign there, that we owe them that much, and since he did call and request that, then I
feel like that’s in order.
Mr. Mayor: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Just an observation, too. When dealing with private sector, we have
got to find ways to streamline this thing where they don’t have to come back week after
week after week, and go ahead and turn the key on some of these arrangements. Move to
call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The motion, the substitute motion has been made to carry this two
weeks, and Mr. Shepard is representing he would have a final draft of it at the next
meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: At this time, the chair will declare the Commission meeting in recess
for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on our budget as required by law. If there
any people who are here today to speak with respect to the budget, please be sure you
sign up with the Clerk here so you can be recognized during the hearing.
Commissioners, we’re in recess. If you need to do something or you can stay for the
hearing. It’s entirely up to you, at your discretion.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor:
Call the meeting back to order. If we can, Mr. Cheek had asked for
an addition to the consent agenda, items 2 and 3 off the addendum agenda, and at this
if we can get motion to add and approve items 2
point I think unless there’s objection,
and 3 from the addendum agenda.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Addendum Item 2. Consider approval of annual contract with Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory (SREL) to monitor and document bird activity in vicinity of
wetland treatment system and Augusta Regional Airport.
40
Addendum Item 3. Approve Change Order #1 to the Jamestown Sewer Phase II
Project allowing for the emergency construction of the sewer line along Walton Way
at the Forest Hills Apartments.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move back to our consent agenda, Madame Clerk. I believe the
next item is item 22.
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve consent to an assignment by Williams Environmental
Services, LLC to Compass Environmental, Inc. of the Construction Contract dated
February 25, 2004 by and between Augusta, Georgia and Williams Environmental
Services, LLC and Atlanta Gas Light Company. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 25, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I had some discussion with Mayor Pro Tem, with
Commissioner Mays, he had a comment or question he wanted to ask. But this is the
same firm, this is the same organization that we started out with when we was having the
problem with the Atlanta Light & Gas and William Environment and whatever. What’s
changing, is – I know we changing firms, but that, there was some language in there,
some things they supposed to do, if I remember, Mr. Mayor, we was going to get $1
million worth of work for half a million dollars or something of that sort. I don’t
remember exactly those figures. But do we have the same agreement? Do we have the
same contract that we are still getting what we bargained for the in the initial beginning?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. All we’re doing here is asking the contract be assigned to
the new owner of the company. Williams is selling the company and Compass
Environmental is purchasing it. Our contract is the same, the terms are the same, it’s
going to be worked the same, the price is the same, in fact the people here doing the work
are the same. They’re not even going to change. It will be a seamless transition from one
owner to the next. The work is being done under a schedule that has been approved and
is being honored by Georgia EPD, under a consent order with Atlanta Gas Light
Company, and it’s also being honored by the PSC because [inaudible] involved in the
work. So as far as what we see here, there will be no change at all except there may be a
new sign for a new company on the site. But everything else will go as it reads in the
contract.
Mr. Williams: Well, I hear what you saying, Mr. Mayor, and I’m glad to hear
that. But at the same time I know once you change, once you, you sign over or
41
something else, and I want to be clear that what was, what was stated before or what was
in the previous contract when it came to this firm is the same agreement that we’ve got
with the new firm taking it over. And we had some discussion about Atlanta Light & Gas
as to what their participation was. So I hear what you saying, Mr. Mayor, and I think we
can go ahead and vote on this, but everything is the same as the previous contract except
changing the name of the owner of the contract?
Mr. Mayor: Of the company.
Mr. Williams: Of the company. I’m sorry. Of the company. So it will be –
Mr. Mayor: Our attorney can further attest to that. Steve [inaudible]?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Commissioner is asking about any potential changes in work or
process.
Mr. Williams: I think, Steve, you understand what I been asking about these
contracts and when we change and when we don’t know exactly what’s in there. And
when we change firms in the midst of this, all the work that been done, I need to know,
hear from you what your legal mind says on this.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is an
assignment which will in essence be guaranteed by Atlanta Gas Light Company. And the
contract says that in all duties and obligations that fall in the contract, all covenants,
promises and agreements that hereinafter follow [inaudible] contractor, which is
presently Williams Environmental, and then there would be substitute Compass
Environmental. Atlanta Gas Light agrees to be bound by and be jointly responsible with
the contractor, which was Williams Environmental, now will be Compass Environmental,
for performance of all the duties and obligations of the contract. And then it says if we
have a contract with them and Augusta disputes the contract as not been performed,
makes a claim under this contract or otherwise [inaudible] our rights under the contract,
you still have Atlanta Gas Light agreeing to respond jointly with the contractor, which
would be Williams now, would be Compass, and such and to be jointly liable with the
contractor as if it were a contractor. So you have one of the – in my opinion you will
substitute a new contracting firm and you will have a strong guarantee of performance by
Atlanta Gas Light Company. So I think that, I have no problem recommending the
approval of this assignment. And –
Mr. Williams: I say again, Mr. Shepard, and thank you for your legal opinion and
I respect that, and I’m not, I’m not fighting this, but I do know we had some problems a
year, maybe two years ago, and we talked about how much we going benefit and
[inaudible] it came up with Atlanta Gas & Light Company saying that they wasn’t going
to do certain things and now when I heard about the change, it kind of, you know, got my
42
attention. So I see the Mayor Pro Tem is back. We, we, we, we had some discussion on
that. He may have a comment. I don’t know. But if everything the same, I trust –
Mr. Shepard: Well, you’re going to have a new contractor now, Mr. Williams.
Compass Environmental.
Mr. Williams: New company, same contract.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Same contract. Just new company. Same agreement.
Mr. Shepard: Same guarantor.
Mr. Williams: Same – okay. And I just want to be sure because it’s too late after
you done signed this thing and got it out the [inaudible] put it out there and it’s gone.
That’s all. I see the Mayor Pro Tem. He may have a question. I don’t know.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think probably you all have answered what my questions
were. They were similar to Commissioner Williams’ and the things I’d ask the attorney
to make sure of, that we were headed in that direction, that if we – if firms were changing
that the details were not changing. And to make sure that those things would be correct
and to a T. And I knew I would be somewhat in a strange position because historically
on this whole project [inaudible] dealt with AGL and because of the original lawsuit that
was in there and then having church membership in that property I abstained from all of
those during those years that we have done it. But I wanted somebody to make sure the
question was asked and [inaudible] so I think we’re in the right direction and where we’re
[inaudible] question and size of it. I’ll have to abstain because that’s where I’ve been on
it and because that’s been a conflict from the start in terms of where we were one of the
original plaintiffs in the suit against them, against AGL, and they were contracted by
AGL.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can ask another question, here, a point of
clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Can we get a report back as to where they are now versus what we
started off with, even though we changing names of the firm, the contract still the same.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell can do that and I was going to add after we took a vote,
Mr. Williams, that this coming Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of the Interior, Mr. Steven Briles, will be in Augusta to do a site visit of the
work that’s underway. Atlanta Gas Light has arranged to conduct that, and I would invite
any Commissioners who are interested in inspecting the work that’s underway and
getting an update and briefing to join us at nine o’clock next Tuesday. Just let my office
43
know, make sure you’re out there. All of you are invited, have been invited to a lunch at
Savannah Rapid Pavilion. If Mr. Russell will make sure we get a written report.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard had a response.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to make further clear that – and the duties are not
changing, but Atlanta Gas Light is going to insist that they have the same standby letter
of credit that Williams has, and the Compass must consent in writing to assume all of
Williams’ obligations and responsibilities set forth in the guaranty documents. So
Augusta, Augusta can be the last to sign to make sure all these assignment provisions are
met, but I don’t see a change in scope, change in duties. I was advised that you’ll have
the same people working, you’re just going to have the contract assigned to Compass.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Beard: It’s at nine o’clock?
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am?
Ms. Beard: The tour of Atlanta Gas Light Company, nine o’clock which day?
Mr. Mayor: Nine o’clock Tuesday.
Ms. Beard: Tuesday.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to attend, if you’ll just let me know. [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could I ask for clarification?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: You also have an economic lunch that same day.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a busy week.
Mr. Boyles: Going to eat lunch twice.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: I got the letter yesterday from your office.
Mr. Mayor: We just have a lot going on. Got people coming it to see us. Some
of this, we don’t have control of their schedules. They tell us. Anything further on this?
Do we have a motion, Ms. Bonner?
44
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item we have is item number – Mr. Hankerson asked that
we take up item number 35 before he has to go to church. If you’d read that item now,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
EEO/MBE SUBCOMMITTEE:
35. Recommendation from the subcommittee regarding the appointment of MBE
Coordinator.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, are you ready to give a report on this?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Along with myself and my chairman of
Administrative Services, I can start and give a little bit of this. Obviously this is
something that the, one of the two positions that we had advertised for and had gotten
back in excess of 200+ names. I want to thank Commissioner Hankerson, who chairs the
overall committee, for allowing me to still stay on as the subcommittee chairperson, to
Ms. Sims, who actually came out of another committee and agreed to serve on this
particular subcommittee with the search. Thanks, also, to those committee members,
Steven Kendrick, Ms. Rose Castleberry, and to Dr. Roscoe Williams that worked with us
in times of narrowing the names down, as well as to staff, particularly over in HR, Ms.
Pelaez and others that worked to help get us to this particular position. We were quite
delighted, I guess would be an understatement to say, in terms of the two finalists that we
ended up with, where we probably could have made a decision that I think this
Commission would have been satisfied in either direction. In this world of indecision, we
didn’t want to leave you with having to deal with that, so we are going to make one
recommendation in terms of doing that. And I said out of those 200-something names, we
ended up finding that the person that we will obviously place in nomination today is right
here in our own back yard. Also, I’d like to say that we should be probably ready – we
kind of took a back seat or two, we’ve had different [inaudible], different workshops, and
our little committee would get bumped aside from time to time and we got such an
enthusiastic group that’s not on the Commission that will actually call in, I think to Ms.
Bonner’s office, and will see when are we meeting, whether or not we’re still on for our
45
subcommittee meetings. So we’ve been very, very attentive in this area in terms of
getting this narrowed down and hopefully within the next couple of weeks will have this
one done as well. We conducted two series of interviews on our finalists and our
meetings, when we got them narrowed down, were open meetings. We also taped the full
interviews for the committee’s benefit and also from the standpoint of Open Records on
the two finalists that we did that are still available for the Mayor and any Commission
members, should you so desire to go back and to hear those. But we are hoping that you
will trust the subcommittee, which has been made up of those persons that I’ve named,
both on the Commission and out of this community, that will be bringing you the
nomination today. At this time, I’m going to relinquish it, if I can, Mr. Mayor, to my
Administrative Services chairman to name that person and to make that nomination and I
guess after working with this [inaudible] position to the floor that started really in the old
government prior to consolidation. I’d like the right to second his motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee. It’s been a
long process, a very interesting process and really to look at all the applicants we
interviewed and the applications that we had a chance to review and again, we had a very
good working committee. The individual, as Commissioner Mays have already stated, is
right here in our back yard. Right at our back door. She’ll be coming from the Medical
College of Georgia with a wealth of experience working in the area that we are hoping
that she would be hired into, Outreach Development Coordinator for the Medical College
we would hope that
of Georgia. She’s just a local person and she interviewed well and
the Commission would accept our nomination in the name of Ms. Yvonne Gentry,
Rosalyn Yvonne Gentry.
She resides in Hephzibah, Georgia and works at Medical
College of Georgia now.
Mr. Mays: And I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might say one thing, and I be very remiss if I did not
say this. I mentioned that the chairman kept me on as the subcommittee chairman. But I
could not help but remember how important this was to the late Commissioner Lee
Beard. And Lee chaired that committee before Rev. Hankerson had it and this was very
important to him, and he asked me to be his subcommittee chairperson and I know he
would be glad that we are finalizing this, and also this person not only with the position
that she holds at MCG, brings a wealth of experience from the fact that she’s also a
former bank branch manager and that also helps into the world of trying to build
relationships with this position. And I’ve said all along we can write all the ordinances,
we can deal with all the laws we want to, but we do need people in the community and
people who work within the government that can help to build relationships along with
just making laws, so I hope we’ll approve this.
46
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to thank you, Mr. Mays, for your leadership on the
subcommittee and Mr. Hankerson for your leadership in moving this initiative along. It’s
[inaudible] fulfilled the promise of the initial consolidation Act [inaudible] creation of a
minority business advisory board [inaudible]. Please take a look at that and let’s get
those folks appointed. But the board has been appointed, it’s functioning, we now have
the staff position created and hopefully today the Commission will move forward to fill
that position. [inaudible] participation by minority businesses and this will move us to
the next level and allow us to get much more aggressive having one person who is
focused [inaudible] Commission’s commitment [inaudible] business practices [inaudible]
we possibly can. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I may just make a comment that I, of course as
everyone else, I was invited to all the committee meetings and I actually made none. I
don’t mind saying that because all of us had different things to do. But it makes me feel
good today to know that the members of this – and I’m assuming the vote today is going
to be positive – but that the other members of this [inaudible] are actually taking and
trusting a committee recommendation, and I think that’s – you know, sometimes we hear
of all the things we do wrong, but I think that’s something we’re doing right. I comment
Willie and Bobby and everybody for all the hard work they did on it, everybody that was
involved in that process. And I do know the applicant and I think it’s a great choice and I
do appreciate us being able to take another committee’s recommendation and act on it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, please vote with the
usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: I understand from the Mayor Pro Tem that if we pull item number 31
off the table, we may have resolution. The special exception issue. Are we ready to take
it up now? Want to wait?
Mr. Mays: I think we’ve got something moving. It will be a matter of whether
the petitioners can actually move without attorney’s advice. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on to another item.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: Can we go to 24?
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 24.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
The Clerk:
47
24. Motion to approve staff recommendations concerning the Solid Waste
Collections contract in the areas of Price Adjustments, Billing System, Contract
Length as discussed at the September 17, 2004 and October 15, 2004 Solid Waste
Work Sessions. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 25, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to respond to it because I
was reading the background on it, it did ask for us to provide input into the – several
decisions that was made and I have some questions and provide some input into it
addressing the price adjustment. It talks about defining resolutions, automatically
increase the fees in order not to operate in a deficit and I just have some problems with
automatic increase of fees of that. I needed some more clarity on that. And basically my
concern is what have we done to, to collect the past due fees now that’s already the
deficit? I know we talked about it, that we had past due fees and how much that costs,
how much we already collected, or do we have a process in place to collect the past due
solid waste fees?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you –
Mr. Hankerson: And I do have some [inaudible] follow up.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want her to answer that now or go to other questions?
Ms. Smith: Can I answer those two before I forget them?
Mr. Hankerson: You too smart to forget.
Ms. Smith: The first one on the automatic prices increase, primarily what we’re
doing is we’re taking a lesson learned from the Utilities Department where they looked at
their overall program and projected what the costs were for the – when they were making
the changes for the water bill and identified what those increases would be relative to the
services that will be provided. And basically what we’re saying is when the new contract
comes in, we would take at it from a holistic approach, determine what the fees are that
are required to support it throughout the entire contract, and present that information to
the Commission so that we don’t have to come back each time there is a potential change.
So that’s basically what we’re doing. We’re following up on that lesson learned.
Mr. Hankerson: So then that means that we may get some changes in the middle
of the contract or something?
Ms. Smith: Well, I don’t think we –
Mr. Hankerson: Are we increasing fees?
48
Ms. Smith: Well, unless you want –
Mr. Hankerson: I’m [inaudible] automatic increase, because the constituents call
on us when their water bill – now I haven’t answered all the questions yet about the water
bill and now here we are saying automatic increases on the solid waste.
Ms. Smith: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: And be calling in the middle of the year with an increase of a
certain amount.
Ms. Smith: Well, we actually would have two choices. We could take the cost
for the entire life of the contract and attempt to normalize it so there is one fee for the
entire life of the contract, which means we would be collecting more than we are paying
out on the front end and less than we’re paying out on the second end, but the net balance
would be zero. Or again, we could do like they’re doing with the water fee where we
collected and it increases in accordance with the two year or four year, whatever the
increases are that are identified by the contractor, each time that that price increase. So I
mean those are the two options. But in either case we want to make sure that we’re not,
we’re not back in the situation that we are in with our current contract, but that we’re able
to provide information up front, taking a holistic view at what the cost is associated with
the contract.
Mr. Mayor: If I may inject, so we don’t get too hung up on the utilities rate
increase because that’s keeping the bond payment and repayment of debt. That’s not –
the utility fee increases are built into the bond covenants. They’re not adjusted each year
based on subcontract charges. Those rate increases are predetermined and established
based on the debt repayment schedules.
Ms. Smith: Up front. Looking holistically at the bonds. That’s why I’m just
saying we are taking a holistic view similar to what they’ve done.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] could change from year to year in the contract.
Ms. Smith: We’ll know that up front.
Mr. Mayor: Debt repayment doesn’t change.
Ms. Smith: We’ll know that up front. We’ll know what the total amount is and
that’s why we’d be able to give that holistic picture.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Also, on how –
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry, Commissioner, you also asked about the collection of the
fees, and that was turned over to the attorney’s office. So, Steve? For garbage
collection? The $1.4 million?
49
Mr. Shepard: Yes. I’ll be happy to give a more detailed report. What I’ve got,
let me just tell you. We worked this project jointly with the Law Department and it was a
[inaudible] in getting the matters set up for collection. When we got it ready to go for
collection, the – a meeting was held which involved the Tax Commissioner, my office
and Mr. Johnson from the Landfill and we had had at work what they call the fi fa
process, and this has now cut that indebtedness down below $700,000. The advice of this
office is that the fi fa process be allowed to continue to work because apparently when we
first had it, had looked at it, it appeared not to be working, but through the, through
consultant with the Tax Commissioner and the delinquent tax office, we had established –
and I can bring these figures this afternoon – the fi fa process, ladies and gentlemen, is
working. I think we should give it slightly more time. I know we were tasked to have
something done by the end of the year and it has been, frankly, a lot more encouraging
than I felt it would be to have the [inaudible] in that capacity, and that’s my
recommendation. Because simply, it is working. I haven’t had a change to report to the
body here, but I can give you those specific figures just a little bit later in the day.
Mr. Hankerson: I appreciate that, Mr. Shepard. Will you explain that process to
us? I know I probably caught you off guard by asking about it, but I really need for this
to come back to the proper committee to give us a report on the amount of uncollected
fees that we started out with that we were so surprised with, the amount not that is still
outstanding, and our method that we are going to go ahead and collect that. Because I
don’t think that we are helping ourselves if we have $1 million uncollected fees and it
taking us ten years to collect them. We’re not helping. I think we need something in
progress. We need to get one of those companies that, or something that collect past due
bills for us. It doesn’t take long, you know. You go to the hospital and before you can
get home and get well, you have already got the bill. The ambulance service pick you up.
You don’t have to worry about. You are going to get the bill. Unpaid and in a few days
you are going to be turned over to the collection agency. We are – I’m just saying we are
talking about how we are going to increase on the services for solid waste for the future
and you have people that has been dedicated to paying their bills and we going to look at
the process of adding it to the water bill, which I do not approve of, but I want to see how
we could collect money that’s being paid, owed to us. If you can bring that report back to
us in the proper committee and let us see how – that process that you were talking about,
go more in detail on that cause you kind of speaking in the attorney language and it kind
of got me a little off.
Mr. Shepard: Do you want me to do that at this time or do you want me to
[inaudible] report how much as been collected?
Mr. Hankerson: Just briefly the process that you said was working. If you can
give it to me in ten words or less.
Mr. Shepard: It’s – when the matter is not timely paid to the Tax Commissioner –
this was all placed with the Tax Commissioner. It was all placed with the Tax
Commissioner. When it’s not timely paid, it goes into what they call a fi fa status, and
50
that is then recorded on the general execution docket, which becomes a judgment against,
against the property of the person who is named in the fi fa. And therefore, the threat of
that fi fa has brought in the money.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, can we charge a judgment on property, and when that was
not – it was a fee and it was not a tax?
Mr. Shepard: Well, yes, I think we can. And it has been, that has been the
practice for the last three years.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: And I’ll be happy to bring that report. Mr. Johnson attended the
meeting with me. I’ll be happy to do that.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I mentioned the billing system about you had two
methods of billing, and that one was adding it to the utility bill and the other was solid
waste, collecting that. And I strongly disapprove of adding it to the utility bill but I’d like
to hear something on your decision on if we decide to solid waste collection, how would
that work.
Ms. Smith: Okay. And so that you don’t have to hear it twice, one in overview
and once in detail, I’ll let Mark explain that.
Mr. Johnson: It would work very similar to how the utilities would bill.
Basically, we would have some options, but the goal would be to bill currently or to bill
in advance for service, such that we could get paid equal to or in advance of when we
perform. The challenge becomes the collections piece, and then what system do we use?
Currently we use a tax system which gets us through the court systems faster. It just
takes us a long period of time to actually collect. If we did it, we would have to use a civil
process, hiring an outside firm or some other entity to assist us in collecting those funds.
Some of the up sides and some of the down sides: 1, solid waste would have to hire more
staff right out of the box to offer customer service level, to offer billing staff; 2, we’d
have to buy billing software and would have to get a software package that would be
configured so that we could do these things. We have, on the solid waste side, two staff
at this point. There is no way for me to bill 60,000 residents with two people. So if we
went through utilities side, they already have some of these people in place. We would
be piggy-backing on their type of system and there would be some potential savings
there. To try to collect off a utility bill, what you would do is you would end up passing
an ordinance that says the solid waste fees would be collected first, then it would actually
go to the water bill. So they would pay for the solid waste fees up front, so then you
actually had enforcement through disabling water, so on and so forth. So there are pros
and cons. One way you can use internal systems to collect these, the other way you use
outside resources to collect fees.
51
Mr. Hankerson: Have you did any research from other cities of how they collect
the solid waste?
Mr. Johnson: Different cities use different programs. Some use a taxation
system. Some include it in the overall millage where there is an appropriated amount that
comes back out to solid waste consistently where it’s an actual tax as opposed to a fee.
Some actually use what is called franchises where a hauler has a specific section and the
hauler does the billing. Others do it where the government actually does independent
billing. So the choices really come back to us and what fits Augusta best.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. When you mentioned the millage, I had a question about
that. The urban – we have a millage rate.
Ms. Smith: Can I mention one thing, Commissioner, about the options Mark just
identified? If you take a look in your package, one of the things that is important for you
to note is that some of the services that we are recommending cannot be supported by all
of the different types of billing systems. So as you look at what is being recommended, if
we decided to go with leaving it on the tax bill, there are certain flexibilities that we
would not have relative to the services that are being offered and exemptions and some
things like that. So I just wanted to make that note while he was kind of rolling out the
list of billing systems.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. And the millage, the urban collection is through millage.
Mr. Johnson: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: And the suburban is through fees.
Mr. Johnson: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: So that means everyone in suburban area pays the $195 at the
end of the year.
Mr. Johnson: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: So are we saying those are the ones that are, in that category, is
the unpaid fees coming from there, because the urban – you already collecting it through
the millage; is that correct?
Mr. Johnson: It is collected through millage, but if that individual or organization
doesn’t pay their taxes, I don’t get my share of the tax that they don’t pay.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. So the millage, then if you have a problem there then we
also have a tax problem, too.
52
Mr. Johnson: That’s correct. Just like you would on fees. Typically, if they’re
not paying the solid waste fees, they’re probably not going to pay their taxes as well.
Mr. Hankerson: So do you have – have you a list of the ones, the urban, the
deficit and the urban versus the suburban to know? Because it seem that one method of
the taxes through the millage, is a collection method, so if that’s not working then that
mean it’s not going to work in suburban either. You’re going to have the same problem.
Mr. Johnson: I do not have those statistics, no.
Mr. Mayor: Steve, do you?
Mr. Shepard: No, I do not have those statistics. But that was the point when we
went down and conferred with the Tax Commissioner. The collection system is working.
I can get the breakdown for you but I don’t have it today.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Then my final input is on the contract length. No
evergreen contracts. What I notice here that it recommend, the recommendation is to
extend it to six years, and an option of two year renewal, and to me that’s evergreen. We
trying to get away from them evergreens. I understand the rationale behind the length of
it. You talking about equipment and it would save us and so forth, but can we – we can
do that without automatic renewal.
Mr. Johnson: Mr. [inaudible] looked into that for us and came back with an
answer from Purchasing that said we could do a five year contract and two one-year, and
two one-year options. And that would be the maximum allowed under our current
structure. We would have to change that.
Mr. Hankerson: My only problem is, whether it’s a five year or a six year, I don’t
have a problem with that, with the explanation why, but I’m just – the evergreen part,
that’s the one I want to get away from. Automatic renewals.
Ms. Smith: And Commissioner, what we would have there is we would have –
basically it would set up so that we would not necessarily have to come back to the
Commission to extend it if by chance that we were having problems or experiencing any
issues associated with it, but it wouldn’t necessarily be written so that it was evergreen
such that there had to be some major problem or issue associated with it before it rolled
over into the next year. It could be at the option of the government.
Mr. Hankerson: I can see convenient for you all, but my experience with the
evergreen type contracts, it always comes to us at the last minute and we don’t have time
to really discuss it and I don’t feel comfortable with any more evergreen contracts, to put
that kind of pressure on the Commission to make a decision at the last minute. I’d rather
it for it to expire and it come to an expiration date and we know that we have to come to
renew the contract and do that. Those are my concerns and my input that I am giving.
And when do we have to finalize this? Today is for information, I know that.
53
Ms. Smith: Well, actually we, we presented it back to Engineering Services for
information. Before we can do anything as far as sending it out or putting the item out to
bid, would be to receive direction with respect to Commission support of the
recommendations for how we do the billing, the contract lengths, which was the five
years with two one-year options, and then the price adjustments that will be included in
the resolutions that were discussed early on. And the schedule that we presented back in
August, I think it was, had us on track to have a decision from the Commission during the
month of November so that we could put the contracts out to bid and get those bids back
and analyze them in time for us to have a contract put in place with the least amount of
disruption with respect to the services going into effect in July of ’06. Excuse me,
January of ’06.
Mr. Hankerson: What method do we have as far as measuring the performance of
the current supplier?
Ms. Smith: What we have is we have complaints taken or requests for services or
whatever the issues are, are turned in to the haulers. The haulers in turn provide us with a
report every week of any concerns that have been identified by the citizens. We do, I
know we were doing about 10% callback on those to try to make sure that whatever the
issues were, they were taken care of. And then we have a system in place where the two
code enforcement officers that he was mentioning earlier on go out and do spot checks
and fields visits.
Mr. Hankerson: Do the Commissioners get a report on the performance of that
particular company that is contracted so we know whether or not we want to support that
same company or whether that would affect – I think to give contracts and so forth, we
measure their performance and the complaints we receive from them, does that have any
impact on the decision, the bidding process and so forth?
Ms. Smith: Well, we have not submitted a formal report to the Commission with
respect to any of the information that we have gathered to date, so we have not sent a
report back up with respect to complaints and response to complaint. Our current process
does not take into consideration past performance. It’s typically a low bid or best bid
process as far as the collections contract is concerned.
Mr. Hankerson: Don’t you think past performance should have some impact on
it? I mean cause low bid is not always the best bid. It’s the performance and the
customers’ complaints, citizens’ complaints [inaudible]. They could be low and could be
trashy.
Ms. Smith: And I agree, but unfortunately when the contract were set up, there
was no the foresight there to put a program in place that would allow us to have that or
that we would be able to defend legally if by chance we were challenged. So we have
some information but it’s mostly either subjective or sporadic.
54
Mr. Hankerson: How can we work toward that, in making sure we have that?
Cause that’s very important.
Ms. Smith: We’ve included some reporting provisions and requirements in the
new contract where the haulers are required to give us certain data in certain methods,
and we have some systems that we are in the process of putting in place so that we can
generate the kind of information that we would be able to objectively identify
performance. Performance measures, for instance.
Mr. Hankerson: Now these complaints should be registered through Augusta
Cares. I’m quite sure some citizens probably call the solid waste department rather than
calling through Augusta Cares so it could be recorded, and then if they coming through
solid waste, whether Augusta Cares and solid waste are interacting there to know how
many complaints we’re getting from the service providers.
Mr. Johnson: We do receive reports from Augusta Cares. We do receive
complaints and the haulers receive complaints. That generates for us three independent
reports. We get a report from Augusta Cares and which we respond to. Unfortunately, if
they call more than one entity in the – if they call the hauler and didn’t get the resolution
that they looked for instantly and then they call Augusta Cares and Augusta Cares says
we’ll get a hold of solid waste division, and they call us, that shows up as three separate
incidents, so the numbers are skewed, even though it was actually one event. So if you
look at, as an example, the ice storm. They were calling everybody every day. We have
a very high number of calls and complaints over an average number of issues. So our
numbers are skewed even though we have effective ways to track, because we close out
through Augusta Cares electronically, ours we close out manually, and the haulers we
address over the phone. So we close them out individually. Unfortunately, the reports
don’t reflect an accurate number.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Thank you. Those are my concerns about it. Again, I
asked the question. I wasn’t too clear. When are these contracts going to come forth?
This is on the agenda today, this is on the agenda that it just move forward with the
decisions that are before us?
Ms. Smith: We would, as soon as the Commission is comfortable with giving us
disposition on the price adjustments proposal, as well as tying down the billing system,
and again the length of the contract, we’ve kind of gotten that from Purchasing. But
basically what it does is the amount of time from now until we get a decision decreases
the amount of time that the contractor has available to implement once we get on the back
end of the contract. So right now we’ve got a little over 12 months to put a new contract
in place. We all know that we’ve attempted to do that in two months in one instance and
in four months in another instance and had a lot of problems in doing it both times, and
we’re recommending no less than six months in order for us to award a contract, allow
them to get their equipment in and to get the logistics worked out as far as cans and
schedules and all of that stuff. So we’re actually – that leaves us from today six months
to go out to bid and get the bids back in, which is about a three to three-one-half month
55
process and then time to come back to the Commission without being rushed to present
the information to you and then to award the contracts. That kind of limits us to about
three Commission meetings to be able to do that. And then again, the time decreases as
we wait. Today would be ideal, but it’s not necessarily essential that it be today.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m asking that my input be considered. I think these are some
things the Commission need to look at before we move forward with the contract or the
method of the billing system, how we are going to bill then and about the automatic
increase of the fees and also I need a report back on where we are with collecting the past
due fees. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. The chair will recognize Mr. Cheek and
then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do appreciate the patience of the
Commission. What I’d like to do is in the future schedule our work sessions, which
we’ve had 2+, for five hours total, [inaudible] the regular Commission meetings. I’d ask
the body to please take these types of in-depth questions to the department heads or come
to the work sessions and discuss these. This is a process that staff has come up with on a
timetable to put us out to bids without having our backs up against the wall. We have
worked a timetable and stayed on top of it to this point. What we have done is brought
this to the Commission after two work sessions where we could have had these things
addressed, discussed and made alterations. But we are here today with a request to move
this forward. Now when we go back out to contracts and all there will be a period of time
to make adjustments, but I really think that while we all have feelings about things one
way or another, sometimes what we feel is not in the best, is not supported by the
soundness of the research and the development and the study and the lessons learned
from staff. Again, there are some things within this document that I don’t agree with
completely, but based on the logic used to maintain the same level of service with some
adjustments, still providing a product that is 10 to 20 dollars less per month than what
you can get for one day a week from BFI, dealing with this in a comprehensive nature,
addressing both the haulers’ needs, staff needs, billing needs, and every other thing that
has come up in the last three years, this is a good package. And with that, Mr. Mayor, we
will work, we will hold other work sessions. We plan on continuing to work the process
on a timetable, but I encourage the body to please consider passing this back to staff with
the recommendation to proceed as they plan. They’ve done too much work and it’s too
good a document for us to sit back and pick it apart. If we could sit down for the five
hours that we’ve done so far and cover this, we can address every issue. I guess the
bottom line on it is it is really disheartening to myself and staff to sit through five hours
of meetings and really work really hard to come to a full blown Commission meeting and
have issues brought up that should have been discussed in work session or with staff after
all the work has been put in and ask for a deferment of something that is really a fine
Mr. Mayor, I’m going to urge approval of what
document and a fine piece of work.
staff has recommended and to move forward with the process.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Is that a motion?
56
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, I’m going to make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I recognize Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Somewhere in that, somewhere in this long debate, I think I have
got my question answered. I’m going to defer mine because we do have some people
that have been sitting here forever. So I would just delay my question on that.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, in due respect to our chairman of Engineering
Service, I am not trying to prolong and not trying to nitpick anything, but these are some
very serious decisions here to be made for me to not ask questions. I wouldn’t ask
questions about it if it hadn’t been in the backup before. My input today. It said for my
input. So if it hadn’t said that, I wouldn’t have gave no input because I know I wasn’t to
your meeting, but it says input and I do have some input and I gave the input on it. Some
of my questions is also about the millage that the suburban and urban – the urban is
collected in millage, so if you place it on your water bill, are we saying that some people
will have it on your water bill and some won’t? The urban will not have it on their water
bill because you already collecting millage, are you going to discontinue the millage and
put it on everybody’s water bill? I mean those are some things I need, I want to know,
because if you’re a landlord, they are paying the millage and they’re not used to paying
the water bill. So in the consolidated government, where is the line for the urban and the
suburban or do we all have – where is the urban and suburban now with the consolidated
government and the city of Augusta, once I cross the line? So there are some concerns
and questions I need to know about that and I’m quite sure, you know, if we going to do
all millage, we do all millage. If we going to put it on the water bill, which I disagree
with that, but the question in there, Mr. Mayor, as to the Engineering Service chairman,
the reason I was concerned because it gave a option. It said the collections on the water
bill or the solid waste. So which one are they going to use? It didn’t say specifically
which one. That’s why I was questioning it. That’s why I brought those things. I know
that the solid waste has been working very good to clean up this city. I do support it and
I know that we need some way of collecting and that’s my, my concern, how we’re going
to go about doing that. That’s why I was questioning it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some constituents here that been here
for a long time. We did get a sandwich a little while ago. I don’t think they had
anything. And I don’t want them to walk out and leave until we get this matter resolved.
Could we table if necessary and then come back to this? I’d like to get this resolved one
way or the other, Mr. Mayor?
57
Mr. Mayor: I think we’re about to wrap up this. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: This item, Mr. Mayor, the solid waste contract, I have been at those
meetings with the staff and as I saw it today, was the last round of input that I would
need. If there were questions that you had – I know who came and I know what
[inaudible] features the staff recommended. The contract is now in my office for
finalization, drafting. This was, as I read it, time for the other Commissioners to have
their say, I’m, I’ve heard what you’ve had to say and I’m, I don’t have the contract here
today, but we have, we have, we have moved forward to investigate the various ways of
collection. I don’t have a recommendation today but it’s a, I think we’re on schedule. I
think we’re supposed to have feedback here in November. This is the first meeting. And
it was captioned as I saw it to receive as information, to get into to. So I think I have
gotten what I need to know and I’ll be happy to give you the reports either at the first
round of committees next week, because I have those figures back at my office about
where the [inaudible] are at this point on the [inaudible]. We also, if I could speak to –
these folks, these constituents are waiting –
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get to that. I want to dispose of this and then we’ll move on to
that.
Ms. Smith: I think Ms. Bonner was trying to do a correction.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That’s not the caption.
The Clerk: That’s what the recommendation of Engineering Services Committee
was. That was the agenda item used for the work session in the committee.
Mr. Shepard: Well –
Mr. Mayor: The point being, we’re not approving any contracts. Public Works
needs direction to move ahead with the solicitation for bids.
The Clerk: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: We’re not approving anything [inaudible] that’s months away.
Ms. Smith: Well, the problem is –
Mr. Mayor: What you need to do is get the contracts out on the street and get
bids.
Ms. Smith: Right. But the, but the collection method and the information on
price adjustments will impact the information that goes out in the solicitation. And that’s
why we need that feedback.
58
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Any other discussion? We can
vote and then we can get back to our citizens who are here [inaudible]. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, very quickly, since we’re going to end up coming back
with this, and the only reason I’m bringing it up is because I have brought it up before on
more than one occasion. It’s not anything that’s arbitrary to what’s here, but I just
wanted to make sure that as we are moving along in looking at the billing system, is that
we maintain the clarity of separation. If we go the utility route in terms of – because I
was hearing you today in reference to what would come first in that package and I will be
done, and I’ve already been on record as expressing the fact of some things that cannot be
done under that package and some can. And I think the attorney knows where I’m
coming from very quickly on that one because that co-mingling, we got to make sure that
it handles only utilities, I mean only utilities business [inaudible] solid waste handled
with solid waste. Don’t [inaudible] you can’t, you can’t cut off water if you don’t pay for
trash. And that’s my only thing. The elementary form of making sure that that does not
occur. And I just want to have that for the record for the third time [inaudible] with
billing, if that’s tied to those things then I’m not going, I’m not going to be too please
with that, if that mess is not worked out and then – one, legally, you can’t do it anyway,
but I think we need to get that cleared out before we get too far down the road in that
[inaudible] process because you cannot do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, do you have something else you wanted to say?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, and I hate, I apologize for this, holding you
folks up, and I’m going to be as brief as I can. One of the things we did with putting this
on the floor and asking for comments is we didn’t want to wait until the eleventh hour
and then have everybody come up with questions about a contract. It was already fleshed
out and ready to go. We need some resolution today on some of these items, and we can
bring them up individually or we can take the package and pass it today and allow staff to
work it and come back with a recommendation. But the bottom line is these at length
questions and issues need to be brought up earlier in the process and I just hope that we
will in the future, if we have serious concerns, deals with these things. But we need to
give staff some direction. They’ve worked very hard with this and if I remember
correctly, this has been in the box more than once. It’s been in the box several times with
the same list of proposals that we’ve applied and adjusted and now it’s made it to the
book. I guess putting it on the floor for comment actually smoked everybody out with
their issues and concerns, but in any event, I urge passage of the recommendations from
staff and allow them to move forward with the contracts.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion. All in
favor of the motion from Commissioner Cheek, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
59
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-1,
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Now the chair will go back to 31. Are we ready from the attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Larke is in a hearing elsewhere, and that’s the
delay. I have a suggestion to make to him that will resolve the matter by consent
resolution. So I can’t present it to him because he’s in another court. I understand from
his clients that they will be returning.
Mr. Mayor: Do you need to take this off the table?
Mr. Shepard: I would think so.
Mr. Mays: If I might ask, if I might ask Mr. Shepard, because – and in fairness
because we’ve got two sides here, but in trying to move this along on time frame, the, the
neighbors have agreed to some conditions within the zoning matter that’s here. What I
would suggest, Steve, if we could possibly do this, is the fact that if - to spare them from
having to be here, you may have to trust me a little bit, Mr. President, but I was going to
say is we propose exactly what you all have agreed to. If when the attorney advises his
clients that they can or cannot do it, then we can vote upon that, because I think I made it
clear to a point that obviously if, if the agreement probably is not accepted, we may have
to revert back to what the original motion is that’s on the floor. But they’ve not had the
opportunity to discuss that with the attorney who left in the process of the hearing. But
that way it would not keep those conditions that we had discussed with you all as
residents from coming to the floor. And would not keep you here to whatever hour we
might end up being here.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you’re ready to proceed, then we need a motion to take
it off the table.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to take item number 31 off the table.
All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
31. 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
60
.17 acres. (Tax Map 46-3 Parcel 246) DISTRICT 1(Deferred from the October 19,
2004 meeting)
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up that matter in item 31.
31. 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(Deferred from the October 19,
2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, what he was about to indicate was that we don’t have
the assent of the other side.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Mays is ready to move ahead with the conditional
approval, that’s subject to the petitioners’ attorney accepting it.
Mr. Mays: Because it they, if they don’t, and I guess I, I be honest, I have to go
on record as saying this, and this doesn’t make, this doesn’t make the motion pass or fail,
if it doesn’t happen. But what I have promised to the point that if, if we approve the
zoning and with those couple of changes that we talked about to the residents, if they
[inaudible] not to accept it, then I’m going to be willing to be, also make the motion to go
ahead with what’s in the book on the denial. If that’s not acceptable.
Mr. Shepard: What I have not been able to do, shuffling in and out, and I have
not [inaudible] I have his clients, Mr. Larke’s clients sitting here. I need to talk to him.
That’s who I talk to. Not them. So they don’t know what the residents have agreed to
now. I could be, I could talk to them.
Mr. Mays: Unless they want to agree with him, and I wouldn’t say we do that.
What I was trying to do was to make sure that they were not here – well, either side of
them to be here forever in terms of doing it. I mean we could make the motion
conditional on acceptance of it or we revert back to the original motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that’s fair. That it ought to be explained, at
least what the neighborhood agreed to and the, the petitioner can say yeah, we agree or
[inaudible] attorney and they can either agree or disagree. But we can’t – it something
61
that got to be said. It’s got to be put on the floor so we’ll know. It ain’t no courthouse
secret, Mr. Mays. Now you said that a hundred times. We need to explain it. And we
can vote it up or down.
Mr. Mays: Have no problem with that. That will be forthcoming, Rev.
Williams, we plan to do that. But it was just the matter of whether or not to make it
conditional in one motion or if that motion, you know, since they don’t have the
attorney’s consent, and it’s very simple in terms of what will be contained in the
motion. It’s two things, one of which the Mayor suggested earlier in terms of the
ADA standard being applied and being put in since we do not have on record where
the solicitation of patients will come from or what category they will be in. This
would then protect on the two story basis of the home if we were concerned about
that and having access to it, of the home the way it is. And the second would be that
even though it borders up to the, to the [inaudible], other property, that there would
be fencing that would be along that back corridor so that you would, in the event
with being that close proximity to a railroad track, you would not have a wandering
off of patients in there if you had somebody that to a point something happened and
a person became disorientated and [inaudible] yard. It protects them but also if
we’re granting the zoning it allows us with that with that stipulation. Those are the
only two.
Mr. Williams: I think Mr. Patty mentioned that the builders or license &
inspection would determine about the ADA. I mean if you, if you fixing a building there
are some codes and guidelines that it’s required I mean for certain things. And George,
you may want to address that.
Mr. Mays: Well, it has to pass that. That’s why it was in the motion to a point
they may want to accept that fact or not. We’re not turning down and we’re still
providing an access for them to have the ability to get it, but that would be the condition
that we set within the zoning.
Mr. Mayor: ADA requirement would be over and above [inaudible] building
code.
Mr. Williams: And I think the petitioner mentioned there was no site plan. Once
you [inaudible] site plan, George, one you [inaudible] what you plan to do, there are –
now y’all taught me that much. There are some requirements that go along with your site
plans for what you planning to do for the facility.
Mr. Patty: Well, they’re going to work with the existing house. Now there
wouldn’t be a site plan. Now they would have to meet certain codes in order to occupy
the property. Whether they’d have to fully comply with ADA I don’t know. That’s not
my area of knowledge. But I’ve talked to the petitioner and I don’t want to speak for
them, but I think they’re willing to do what you want to do, which is comply with ADA
as necessary.
62
Mr. Mayor: Are you all willing to accept [inaudible] by the Commission today
those two requirements [inaudible] ADA [inaudible]?
Ms. Perrin: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If approved subject to those?
Ms. Perrin: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Stanley, y’all are willing to accept rezoning with those conditions on
it?
Mr. Hawes: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Anything you feel unprotected about? Just want to be fair.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] and so if he has a problem with it, they can bring it
back.
Mr. Mays: Can we use those two words subject to? Put the subject to in there. I
mean if it’s something in there then obviously we got another fight, another time, but we
–
Ms. Perrin: Can I make a suggestion? Can I make a suggestion that we just
present this to him in the morning and he can give Mr. Shepard a call and they discuss it,
and that way this matter will be legally cleared up?
Mr. Shepard: I think that’s what you’re looking for, subject to. Just make it
subject to counsel communication the action of the body. If it’s unacceptable, just let it
come back next time. I hate to do it that way, but there’s a possibility [inaudible] on the
phone this afternoon, so [inaudible] go right ahead and do it. If they’re comfortable with
waiving their counsel, that’s their decision.
Mr. Mays: Well I think if that gets you the [inaudible], what I’m asking, though,
in terms of how to word this particular motion, because you know, I think to a point if
you get back, what you probably going have is you are going to end up with a motion if
it’s probably not with the conditions in there, you are going to end up probably
confirming what Planning & Zoning has sent to us. What I’m wondering, can we make it
subject to their counsel’s approval, but then if not approved, then it’s turned down?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] no choice then.
Mr. Mays: I’m just trying to save everybody a trip back.
Mr. Shepard: I mean –
63
Mr. Mays: On both sides. Because it’s no need – if it’s turned down, the
conditions, it’s no need of them coming back with another deal, to come back a second
time. It’s no need [inaudible] coming back a second time. You just tell me how you
want it lumped in there with all them words. I put it in there and narrow it down and just
make it subject to, and then if it, if they don’t agree on the subject [inaudible] it’s denied.
Mr. Shepard: I think that will work.
Mr. Mays: I so move to that.
Mr. Williams: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Does everybody understand what’s been moved?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, but I’ll second it. Go ahead.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, just for the record, read the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the zoning with the stipulation that ADA
requirements be met and that fencing be erected in the rear of the property subject to the
attorney’s confirming, and if not agreed upon the petition will be denied.
Mr. Williams: Now, now, another question [inaudible] lot of difference fencing
now.
Mr. Mays: What my intentions are, just like the ADA standards are, Rev.
Williams, is that it be built in accordance with the height and length that they can deal
with inside that particular residential area, and our license & inspection department will
be able to guide them in both of them. They couldn’t build it 20 feet high, they be able to
deal with it with the limit. I mean [inaudible] the maximum height and it’s not going to
be but so high because [inaudible] can we [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: I can amend it to putting it in.
Mr. Williams: Clarification.
Mr. Speaker: Commissioner Mays, I think there might be [inaudible]. Privacy.
Mr. Mays: I accept it.
64
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? State for
the record that both the objectors and petitions have agreed [inaudible]. All in favor then
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all very much for your patience.
The Clerk:
25. Motion to approve Public Works and Engineering to execute a sole source
contract with BMS Enterprises for time critical project management in an amount
not to exceed $310,000 to be funded by $100,000 from account 541-04-410/54.32220
and the remaining $210,000 from the bond proceeds. This contract will be for
professional project management services to accelerate and provide timely,
consistent management over the project bids, design, and construction of the cell,
buildings, courtesy drop off area, and infrastructure, as well as CQA on both the
expansion and the closing of cell 2C. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 25, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you asked for that?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. I want to get some clarification. Is BMS going to be the
contractor or the overseer of the contract? Or the contract manager?
Mr. Speaker: The overseer.
Mr. Colclough: All right, now, so you have to go out for bids to do the work?
Mr. Speaker: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: Now where do Heery come in in this contract at? Wait a minute.
Is Heery contract in amount in an amount of $424,700 [inaudible] $310,000 times 137%
for program management services. Now you have two program managers?
Mr. Speaker: No, sir. We’re going to have one program manager that will
oversee all of our construction projects. That was just for comparison, which is Heery,
which is a company that the city already does business with.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] supplemental agreement on the Heery contract, Heery
or whatever their name, in amount times 137% and that’s something like $190,000-some?
Ms. Smith: What we were saying was, we had, we have two options of doing this
in an expeditious manner. One of them was to go with BMS and the other was to go with
65
Heery. We’re not asking you to do both, but Heery’s costs ended up being more than
what BMS’ cost was for the same service. So it’s just a comparison.
Mr. Colclough: We already have a contract with Heery?
Ms. Smith: Correct. They’re the ones that are overseeing the judicial center and
the one percent sales tax and that stuff.
Mr. Colclough: So they don’t have an additional - get additional monies from
this contract we’re talking about?
Ms. Smith: No. If we don’t approve this today, they don’t get anything
additional.
Mr. Colclough: But if we approve it, how much do they get additional?
Ms. Smith: If we approve BMS, Heery doesn’t get anything.
Mr. Grantham: These are just [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Right.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I want to find out. I don’t want to approve something
I did not read. That’s why I asked for clarification.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to find out, and obviously between
alternative one and alternative two, I can see where we’re going in terms of that savings,
but I just want to make sure we’re clear on one word that’s up in here, and – well, really,
it’s two words. On sole source. Now have we, have we, are we, are we on the ground we
need to be on with sole source?
Ms. Smith: And we spoke with Ms. Sams about this, which was part of the
reason we went back and got some information from Heery as well, so it’s not a pure sole
source because we did get information from multiple firms that could provide the service.
Mr. Mays: Well, still, the sole source is in there, and I, and I think, I think maybe
y’all need to – I’m not trying to tell you in the department how to do it cause I got a
[inaudible] wanting to know how much you micromanage. But I also know how much
you get called down and asked whether or not you’ve done something properly on
another floor in this building. Y’all need to get it done, but when you are sole sourcing
something in there, you know, it ought to be to the one that you know does something
that can’t nobody else do it. Now we can do servicing aspects of it, and separate that
66
from, from raw bids and deal with it under professional services. But I think the motion,
whoever makes it, needs to be – it’s just my personal opinion it needs to be [inaudible]
something else other than sole source, because when you flip back and you look at other
people, whether it’s – it doesn’t have to be but one other, but you’ve still got sole source
in here. It’s just a matter, I think, of the – of how we got it worded. But I’d just feel a lot
more comfortable to a point that if there is a quote out and it’s [inaudible] professional
services as opposed to [inaudible] and then award the contract, and then we end up in
here with five to six folks writing procurement or writing the attorney next month to say
well, we would have done that work, and whether they could or not all of them are going
to be cheaper than the one you gave it to, when they are making a complaint.
Ms. Smith: And I agree, Mr. Mays. It should probably read approve Public
Works and Engineering to execute a professional services contract, etcetera, etcetera.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Lot of business now for the afternoon, but I just wanted to throw that
in there.
Mr. Shepard: I think it should be for professional services and with BMS because
they are the chief [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: I’ll make that motion.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the
matter? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think that takes us to item number 33
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: The chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is on – we lost a quorum at the end of the meeting
and I asked this be put on the regular agenda due to the time sensitive nature of the
repairs, and just ask the Commission to consider approval. This will help facilitate us
beginning the planning and taking steps toward mitigating the problems over at the Law
Enforcement Center.
67
Mr. Mayor: Let’s get the Clerk to read the caption.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
33. Motion to approve proposed JLEC Mold Remediation Action Plan
(attached) authorize PWE Facilities Management to proceed with additional
recommended assessments by ACES to determine the extent of necessary
remediation at an estimated cost of $22,000 to be funded from the remaining
SPLOST IV allocation and identify potential funding to implement appropriate
remediation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I obtained from the
Finance Director what might be left in funds for, that are available for these professional
services that are requested today. There is in the JLEC reproofing and waterproofing
account $45,553 and in the [inaudible] exterior finishing, glazing 401 Walton Way is
$80,243. [inaudible] to approve what’s been requested out of one of those two. I do have
some advice to give you about the [inaudible] which I’d like to do in legal due to
potential litigation problems.
Mr. Mayor: What we need is a motion to approve $22,000?
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: And to identify which fund it comes from.
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Ms. Smith: The request for a funding is from job [inaudible] 324051120. That
information was reviewed by and signed off on by Finance before we brought it before
the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, [inaudible] already got it straight.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. [inaudible] discussion? You look like you’re poised to same
something.
Mr. Mays: No, I’m in favor of the motion. I just wanted to know if we, if we
were [inaudible] funding source in legal. I just wanted to make sure we were –
Mr. Williams: Was legal in legal?
68
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]. All in favor of that motion, please vote.
Mr. Hankerson and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us, Mr. Shepard, to legal. You need a legal meeting
today?
37. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real estate.
C. Personnel
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we do. I’d ask that you we go – Mr. Wall is here, we
don’t want him to spend any more time. Go ahead and take him in and I’d like to do it on
the ground of pending and potential litigation. I don’t have any others.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] real estate.
Mr. Shepard: One quick real estate and we’ll go into real estate, as well.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a personnel.
Mr. Shepard: That’s available to you if you need it.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask for a legal meeting for all purposes stated in the agenda
book – pending and potential litigation, real estate, and personnel.
Mr. Mays: You have an itemized list of where they will be taken care of in legal
so that we don’t lose a quorum?
Mr. Shepard: Well – I would like, if you have short matters, we’ll take them up
quickly.
Mr. Mays: We need to take the long ones last. I can say that out here. We need
to take the long ones last cause anybody got long ones, they need to be last. I don’t feel
like coming back out here and everybody gone or we going to leave and get our business
out the way and then don’t get [inaudible]. If we got some long, they need to be last.
Mr. Mayor: Long will be last.
69
Mr. Mays: And that’s the only [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I hear you.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then of going into legal session for the issues
enumerated by the attorney, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Is Jim going [inaudible] for Steve?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll explain that when we get there.
(It was the consensus of the Commission that a legal meeting be held to discuss the
above items.)
38. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Grantham: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Williams and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[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 the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on November 3, 2004.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
70