HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-2005 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 15, 2005
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m. Tuesday,
February 15, 2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Mays, Williams, Beard, Sims
and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT; Hons, Cheek and Colclough , members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. William Bass.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Bass, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the
Commission, we’d like to give you a token of appreciation for imparting heavenly
petition on our behalf. In honor of that, we’d like to name you Chaplain of the Day.
Thank you for being with us.
Rev. Bass: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
Mr. Joshua R. Cole
Augusta Regional Airport Fire Department.
The Clerk: Would you please join the Mayor, along with Mr. Buster Boshears,
who is our Airport Director, along with Fire Chief Willie Paulk from the Augusta
Regional Airport. [reading] Dear Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee
has selected Joshua R. Cole as the January, 2005 Employee of the Month for the City of
Augusta. He is a firefighter with the Augusta Regional Airport Fire Department. Mr.
Cole was nominated by Chief Paul. He has served 6-1/2 years of service with the City of
Augusta. In his nomination, Chief Paulk describes Mr. Cole’s strategy for his
outstanding performance is to make great personal improvements toward working and
communicating with the general public, internal and external customers, as it relates to
providing information and quality services. Mr. Cole has developed and presented fire
safety classes to airport employees and assisted all airport, aircraft, rescue, firefighting
personnel with obtaining the NPQ certification. Mr. Cole recently responded to a
medical emergency involving a lady having a heart attack. He performed CPR until the
ambulance arrived. The Committee felt that based on Chief Paulk’s recommendation and
Mr. Cole’s dedication and loyal service to the City of Augusta, he should be awarded
1
Employee of the Month. We appreciate you joining us in awarding Joshua Cole
Employee of the Month for January. [ends reading]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Boshears: [inaudible] He is a valuable asset out at the airport and we’re
proud to have you.
Mr. Paulk: I just want to thank Josh. He’s one of those rare employees that
manages to get [inaudible]. He always want to know what he can do to make the
department better and want to improve [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
Downtown Development Authority/Main Street Augusta
RE: 2005 Goals and Objectives.
The Clerk: Mr. Chris Naylor.
Mr. Mayor: Chris, are you going to do this or Phil? Both of you?
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I’d like to introduce our Chairman
for 2005 for the Downtown Development Authority, Mr. Phil Wahl, who will go over our
goals and hopefully accomplishments for this ensuing year. Mr. Wahl.
Mr. Wahl: Thank you, Chris. Commissioners, it’s a pleasure to be here for you.
Thank you for giving us a moment to share with you some exciting news for this year. I
just want to, I want to let you know that we’re proud to represent the downtown area,
which is a boundary of the Savannah River to Laney-Walker Boulevard, from East
th
Boundary to 15 Street. Pretty much the central business district of our community.
Proud to say that in 2004 over a net of 25 new businesses located in downtown Augusta
in the central business district. That included the school board, which brought over 200
jobs to the downtown area, with contributions of over $780,000 in impact for the
downtown businesses. We are working hard on projects, as you’re aware, projects such
as the Houghton School and Widows Home, continually working on a parking study for
the downtown area to make sure that we are keeping up with the needs of our central
business district. We also have a ongoing project of developing a building inventory so
that we know which buildings are available for development, buildings that may need
some assistance. We also have partnerships with the other development organizations
that have an interest in downtown. We’ve provided to you the presentation that should be
in your package, and I’d like to introduce Hal Hood. Hal Hood is the chair of Main
2
Street Augusta and this year we made a decision that Main Street and DDA are going to
work together as a united, combined unit to further the interests of the property owners
and that the interests of our community, our downtown central business district. We have
formulated four committees – organization, promotion, design, economic restructuring –
and we’ll share DDA representation and Main Street representation on each one of those
committees, to undertake our goals for this year. If I can just refer to you real quick the
organization committee will responsible for building consensus and cooperation among
the many groups and individuals who have a stake in the revitalization process. They
provide a forum for many different groups and individuals to work together for the shared
goal of a vital city center. The promotion committee promotes downtown as a center of
activity through quality events and marketing, attracting people into the downtown area
to shop, work and invest. The design committee promotes the rehab of existing buildings
in order to create an attractive, pedestrian-friendly downtown center, while paying
attention to all physical attributes in and around downtown. It also promotes the
rehabilitation of existing buildings by educating property owners and local building and
fire officials. Financial incentives also are used in this [inaudible] to spark this activity.
Economic restructuring examines the existing building mix of downtown and works first
to enhance the existing businesses through retention and expansion, then to expand that
base through the recruitment of new businesses to strengthen the city’s existing economic
base. These are the four approach committees that were outlined nationally through the
Main Street program, as suggestion through National Trust, History Trust, and we feel
like it’s time to get back to the basics here and get something done for downtown. We
have enclosed for your reference a list of our members of the Downtown Development
Authority, the members of the board of Main Street Augusta, the members of the
Downtown Advisory Panel. We have telephone numbers, addresses, emails, so if you
ever have an idea that you might want us to look at, work on, or have anything we can
help you with, please don’t hesitate to give us a call, or email or however, whatever
means is best to work for you. I give a moment to Mr. Hood just to say hello, and
anything you’d like to say.
Mr. Hood: I’d just like to say that Main Street is very excited about a new
working partnership with the Downtown Development Authorities. Each of the
committees you have in front of you, each of those committees have their own list of
projects and we look forward to giving you updates on those projects as the days go by.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Mr. Wahl? Okay.
Mr. Wahl: Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is our delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Kenneth E. Hall
3
RE: Conditions at the JLEC
The Clerk: Mr. Kenneth Hall?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s assume he’s not here if he doesn’t respond. Okay.
The Clerk: The marshal is going to see if he’s in the hall.
(Mr. Hall did not appear)
Mr. Mayor: We will try to work next through the consent agenda, and ask
everyone to please bear with the Chair as we try to assemble this consent agenda. First,
though, on the addendum agenda, we have deletion from the agenda, item number 74.
Mr. Grantham, on behalf of [inaudible] has asked that that item be deleted.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Item 74. (Requested by Commissioner Grantham on behalf of the Human Relations
Commission)
74. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond County Section 1-4-
110, et seq. “To provide for a re-stated §1-4-110 through §1-4-139 captioned
“Human Relations Commission” and to repeal any conflicting Ordinances.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting item number 74? If there is no
objection to it, there is unanimous consent and the chair will ask the Clerk please to
delete item number 74 from the agenda today.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Grantham. Let’s move on with the consent agenda
with the items under the published consent agenda and then we have some others we
want to consider adding to that. Madame Clerk, if you will go through the consent
agenda with respect to zoning and alcohol licenses.
The Clerk: Today’s consent agenda consists of item 1 through 37A, items 1
through 37A.
Under the planning portion of our agenda, we ask that if there are any
objectors to any of the planning petitions, as they are read please raise your hand to
signify your objection.
PLANNING:
1. Z-05-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Emma Smiley Kelton, on behalf of
Earl Kelton & Emma Smiley Kelton, requesting a Special Exception per Section 26-
4
1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County to
establish a Family Day Care Home, affecting property located at 224 Memory Drive
and containing .29 acres. (Tax Map 87-1 Parcel 40) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-05-14 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only B-2 use be the use
specified in this petition and those uses allowed in B-1 zoning; a petition by Tim
Ryan, on behalf of John P. Adams, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3203 Wrightsboro Road and containing .22 acres. (Tax map 42-1 Parcel 34.4)
DISTRICT 3
3. Z-05-15 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only LI use be
a small metal fabricating shop; 2) all work must be conducted inside; 3) any outside
storage must be shielded from Wrightsboro Road and the adjoining side properties;
a petition by Jim Jatho requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 3851
Wrightsboro Road and containing 1.95 acres. (Tax Map 39 Parcel 21) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-05-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Ray, on behalf of the Al
Sutton Trust, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 216 Sand Bar
Ferry Road and containing .26 acres. (Tax map 48-3 Parcel 106 & 107) DISTRICT 1
5. Z-05-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Civil Design Solutions, on behalf of
U. S. Duffie, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone
LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property that is
the rear portion of 2332 Barton Chapel Road and contains 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 83
rear of Parcel 10.4) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-05-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cathy Gibbs, on behalf of Ginger L.
Gibson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
affecting property located at 2567 Lumpkin Road and containing approximately 2.8
acres. (Tax map 96-2 Parcels 190 & 191) DISTRICT 6
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Under the alcohol portion of our agenda, public services, if there are
any objectors to these alcohol petitions please signify your objections as well by raising
your hand.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
15. Motion to approve a request by Padi Reddy for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway 921 located at 3224 Deans
5
Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 7, 2005)
16. Motion to approve a request by Un Chong Suk Christenson for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Chongs Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. District 4. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
17. Motion to approve a request by Charles Sconyers for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Road
Runners Café located at 2508 Peach Orchard Rd. There will be Sunday sales.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7,
2005)
18. Motion to approve a request by Stephen Groves for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Restaurant
Concepts II, LLC d/b/a Applebee’s Neighborhood Bar & Grill located at 2125
Windsor Spring Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
19. Motion to approve a request by Kevin Goldsmith for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with TakoSushi
located at 437 Highland Avenue. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 7, 2005)
20. Motion to approve a request by Jay R. Jahn for a Sunday sales license to be
used in connection with Tailwinds Lounge & Café located at 1543 Aviation Way.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7,
2005)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, no objectors are noted. We also have a request from the
Administrative Services Committee to add to the consent agenda – you have the handout
in front of you – items 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 56.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
41. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1915 Grand Boulevard,
1414 Essie McIntyre Boulevard, (District 2, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 2118 Grand Boulevard, 1024 Fifteenth Avenue, 519/521 First
Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1249
Wrightsboro Road, (District 2, Super District 9); Olde Town Neighborhood: 102
Second Street, (District 1, Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading.
42. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the CBD Neighborhood: 537 Walton Way, 541 Walton
Way, 545 Walton Way, (District 1, Super District 9); Meadowbrook Neighborhood:
3702 Old McDuffie Road, 2681 Barclay Street, (District 4, Super District 9);
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1533 Twelfth Street, 1366 Wrightsboro Road, 1637 ½
Forest Street, 1643 Forest Street, (District 2, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 2529 Dover Street, 2550 Dover Street, 2557 Dover Street, 2575
6
Dover Street, 2558 Lyman Street, 2537 Miles Street, 2549 Miles Street, (District 2,
nd
Super District 9); and waive 2 reading.
43. Receive as information update/report for the Economic Development
Ombudsman Initiative.
46. Approve the recommended accounting procedure to be used for the 2004
Waste Management Bond Project.
47. Approve Resolution requesting attorneys add the tax map and parcel
number after the legal description in all real estate deeds.
48. Approve retirement of Ms. Lillie President under the 1977 Pension Plan.
49. Approve $1,800 increase for existing retirees that did not receive the increase
effective October 1, 2004. This $1800 increase is to also apply to future retirees of
the 1949 Pension Plan.
56. Consider a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission to
retain the designation of Bethlehem as a Local Historic District.
Mr. Mayor: And I would refer you to the handout as opposed to the caption in the
original agenda because the handout recommends the approval or disapproval or
whatever affecting these items. And that’s the recommended action.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, would you read those again, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, it’s on the handout, Tommy. It’s 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49
and 56.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a recommendation from the committee for the consent
agenda.
The Clerk: As well as items 1 and 1 under the addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor: And then the addendum agenda, which is the next part of this
handout, we would need unanimous consent to add items 1 and 2 to the agenda today,
and then the recommendation is to move those to the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Motion to approve an emergency funding request in the amount of $50,000
from reprogrammed CDBG funds for the Weed and Seed Program.
2. Motion to approve request from Progressive Redevelopment, Inc., regarding
certification letters for AHP application for Maxwell House Apartments.
Mr. Mayor: If there is no objection to adding those today. All right, gentlemen,
ladies, what is your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Hankerson: What do you say we need to do about 1 and 2? Are we going to
–
7
Mr. Mayor: First we have to have unanimous consent to add those, Bobby, and I
don’t believe there is any objection to adding. I haven’t heard one. Then we would just
include those in the consent agenda as a request from the committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Add and approve?
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Boyles: I move we accept the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: And then we have a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Now would you like to pull any items from the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on item 22 on consent.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item number 22 for Mr. Williams. Any others?
Ms. Beard: 56.
Mr. Mayor: Number 56 for Ms. Beard. Okay. Would you like to pull any other
items?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Item 42, I can either ask to have that pulled or amended to delete
Dover Street, Miles Street, Lyman Street.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s pull that so we can make sure we delete the right things.
We’ve had requests to pull items 22, 42 and 56. Any others? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to see if we could add 71 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection from the body to add item number 71 to the
consent agenda?
79. Approve Value Engineering Proposal from W. L. Hailey & Company, Inc.
for a Deductive Change Order in the amount of –27,125.00 for the Broad Street
Crossing on the Rae’s Creek Sewer Project Phase II (Project 60111).
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? A request to add 71 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: 71?
Mr. Mayor: That’s a deduct change order on the Raes Creek project.
Mr. Williams: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Money savings.
Mr. Williams: Money savings.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll add that to the consent.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could we also add item 72?
Mr. Mayor: Item number 72, can we add that to the consent agenda?
72. Motion to approve letters of consent for the following organization to be
direct recipient of 2005 grant funds from the Governor’s Children and Youth
Coordinating Council.
??
MACH Academy
??
Augusta-Richmond County Community Partnership for Children and
Families, Inc.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? Ms. Bonner, can you keep all this
straight?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ve added and deducted. And the items we’ve added
were 71 and 72, and we’ve deducted 22, 42 and 56. Are you ready to vote now? Is there
anything else you wanted to pull? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m trying to – on 69, adding it.
Mr. Mayor: You want to add 69.
69. Approve soil easement #200484 for GDOT Asphalt Plant site thus allowing
the asphalt plant to continue to operate in the City of Augusta until June 1, 2009.
Mr. Mayor: Number 69, any objection to adding that? All right, we’ll add that,
Madame Clerk.
CONSENT AGENDA:
9
PLANNING:
1. Z-05-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Emma Smiley Kelton, on behalf of
Earl Kelton & Emma Smiley Kelton, requesting a Special Exception per Section 26-
1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County to
establish a Family Day Care Home, affecting property located at 224 Memory Drive
and containing .29 acres. (Tax Map 87-1 Parcel 40) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-05-14 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only B-2 use be the use
specified in this petition and those uses allowed in B-1 zoning; a petition by Tim
Ryan, on behalf of John P. Adams, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3203 Wrightsboro Road and containing .22 acres. (Tax map 42-1 Parcel 34.4)
DISTRICT 3
3. Z-05-15 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only LI use be
a small metal fabricating shop; 2) all work must be conducted inside; 3) any outside
storage must be shielded from Wrightsboro Road and the adjoining side properties;
a petition by Jim Jatho requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General
Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 3851
Wrightsboro Road and containing 1.95 acres. (Tax Map 39 Parcel 21) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-05-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Ray, on behalf of the Al
Sutton Trust, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 216 Sand Bar
Ferry Road and containing .26 acres. (Tax map 48-3 Parcel 106 & 107) DISTRICT 1
5. Z-05-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Civil Design Solutions, on behalf of
U. S. Duffie, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone
LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property that is
the rear portion of 2332 Barton Chapel Road and contains 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 83
rear of Parcel 10.4) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-05-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cathy Gibbs, on behalf of Ginger L.
Gibson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
affecting property located at 2567 Lumpkin Road and containing approximately 2.8
acres. (Tax map 96-2 Parcels 190 & 191) DISTRICT 6
7. FINAL PLAT – ALEXANDER COMMONS, PHASE V – S-573-
REV – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to APPROVE a petition by Cranston Robertson & Whitehurst, on
behalf of Jerry W. Greenway Co., requesting final plat approval for Alexander
Commons, Phase V. This residential subdivision is located on Brickrun Place,
adjacent to Alexander Commons and contains 15 lots.
10
8. FINAL PLAT – HUNTERS MILL SUBDIVISION – S-672 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Poythress Land Surveying, on behalf of ROC Enterprises, requesting
final plat approval for Hunters Mill Subdivision. This residential subdivision is
located off Old Waynesboro Road and contains 52 lots.
9. FINAL PLAT – WHITNEY POINTE, PHASE I – S-685 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
petition by George L Godman & Associates, on behalf of L P B Properties, Inc.,
requesting final plat approval for Whitney Pointe, Phase I. This residential
subdivision is located off Whitney Street, south of Kimberly Drive and contains 19
lots.
10. FINAL PLAT – WHEELER LAKE, PHASE TWO, SECTION TWO – S-
647-II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC
Development Co., requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lake, Phase 2, Section
2. This residential subdivision is located off Caribbean Drive and containing 21 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve a request by Sharon K. Bailey for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with Augusta Center 4 Massage located at 211
Pleasant Home Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 7, 2005)
12. Motion to approve a request by Tavish Bell 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
February 7, 2005)
13. Motion to approve a request by Paula M. Gay for a Therapeutic Massage &
Operators License to be used in connection with Paula’s Massage Works located at
250 Reynolds St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 7, 2005)
14. Motion to approve a request by Jennifer A. Green for a Therapeutic
Massage Operators License to be used in connection with CSRA Neuromuscular
Clinic located at 211 Pleasant Home Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
15. Motion to approve a request by Padi Reddy for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway 921 located at 3224 Deans
Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 7, 2005)
16. Motion to approve a request by Un Chong Suk Christenson for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Chongs Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. District 4. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
17. Motion to approve a request by Charles Sconyers for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Road
Runners Café located at 2508 Peach Orchard Rd. There will be Sunday sales.
11
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7,
2005)
18. Motion to approve a request by Stephen Groves for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Restaurant
Concepts II, LLC d/b/a Applebee’s Neighborhood Bar & Grill located at 2125
Windsor Spring Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
19. Motion to approve a request by Kevin Goldsmith for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with TakoSushi
located at 437 Highland Avenue. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 7, 2005)
20. Motion to approve a request by Jay R. Jahn for a Sunday sales license to be
used in connection with Tailwinds Lounge & Café located at 1543 Aviation Way.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7,
2005)
21. Motion to approve a request by Jennifer Gillespie for a Therapeutic Massage
& Operators license to be used in connection with Jennifer Gillespie at Skin
Essential & More located at 1019 Beverly Heights Drive. District 7. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to approve renewal of the lease with McAir Aviation Services, Inc.
for hangar office space and aircraft storage on the ramp. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 7, 2005)
24. Motion to approve renewal of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC)
Contract. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
25. Motion to accept the low bid of $198,828.90 from Beams Contracting for the
Daniel Field Airport Improvement Project. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 7, 2005)
26. Motion to approve Work Authorization with W. K. Dickson, Inc. in the
amount of $35,600.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
27. Motion to approve request to lease the vacated Station #19 to the East
Augusta Community Association. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February
7, 2005)
28. Motion to approve request to amend 2005 operating budget by $492,366.00
for allocation of additional funds received from the Fire District Insurance
Premium Tax. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 7, 2005)
29. Motion to approve architectural and engineering fee adjustment for Fire
Station #15. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 7, 2005)
FINANCE:
30. Motion to approve request for abatement of penalty for tax year 2003 on
property known as Map 86-2, Parcel 72.01. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 7, 2005)
12
31. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Fire Rescue Truck for the
Augusta Fire Department from Med Tec Corporation of Bessemer, Alabama for
$145,000.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-093). (Approved by Finance Committee
February 7, 2005)
32. Motion to approve $500 sponsorship request from Downtown Development
Authority funded from promotional account and waiver of all fees relative to the
rental of the Augusta Commons in association with the Heart and Soul tour
sponsored by the Georgia Cities Foundation. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 7, 2005)
33. Motion to approve purchase of tickets for the 9th Annual Richmond County
Neighborhood Alliance Banquet. (Approved by Finance Committee February 7,
2005)
34. Motion to approve refund on six accounts. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 7, 2005)
35. Motion to approve purchase of tickets for the 2005 United Way of the CSRA
Annual Meeting. (Approved by Finance Committee February 7, 2005)
36. Motion to authorize submission of grant application to the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources DNR to finance development of a Design
Guidelines Manual for the Pinch Gut (Olde Town) National Register Historic
District. (Approved by Finance Committee February 7, 2005)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
37. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 1, 2005
37A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Charlie Hannah to the Canal
Authority representing District 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
41. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1915 Grand Boulevard,
1414 Essie McIntyre Boulevard, (District 2, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 2118 Grand Boulevard, 1024 Fifteenth Avenue, 519/521 First
Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1249
Wrightsboro Road, (District 2, Super District 9); Olde Town Neighborhood: 102
Second Street, (District 1, Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading.
45. Receive as information only draft for review for “Guide to Augusta Housing
& Economic Development Department (AHEDD) – (Operations, Administration &
Program Management Manual).
46. Approve the recommended accounting procedure to be used for the 2004
Waste Management Bond Project.
47. Approve Resolution requesting attorneys add the tax map and parcel
number after the legal description in all real estate deeds.
48. Approve retirement of Ms. Lillie President under the 1977 Pension Plan.
49. Approve $1,800 increase for existing retirees that did not receive the increase
effective October 1, 2004. This $1800 increase is to also apply to future retirees of
the 1949 Pension Plan.
13
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ADDENDUM AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Motion to approve an emergency funding request in the amount of $50,000
from reprogrammed CDBG funds for the Weed and Seed Program.
2. Motion to approve request from Progressive Redevelopment, Inc., regarding
certification letters for AHP application for Maxwell House Apartments.
69. Approve soil easement #200484 for GDOT Asphalt Plant site thus allowing
the asphalt plant to continue to operate in the City of Augusta until June 1, 2009.
71. Approve Value Engineering Proposal from W.L. Hailey & Company, Inc. for
a Deductive Change Order in the amount of –27,125.00 for the Broad Street
Crossing on the Rae’s Creek Sewer Project Phase II (Project 60111).
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
72. Motion to approve letters of consent for the following organization to be
direct recipient of 2005 grant funds from the Governor’s Children and Youth
Coordinating Council.
??
MACH Academy
??
Augusta-Richmond County Community Partnership for Children and
Families, Inc.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and vote on this. And then if we have some others to
pick up we’ll build another consent agenda if we need to. All in favor of the consent
agenda then as modified and enumerated by the Clerk, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-21, 23-37A, 41, 45-59, Addendum Items 1 and 2, 69, 71-
72]
Mr. Mayor: What we’ll do now is take up the three items that we pulled from the
agenda. Before we do that, let me just, on a point of personal privilege, let me just thank
you for your approval today of the construction contract for the new terminal at Bush
Field. That was item 22 on the consent agenda and it was pulled off for individual
discussion. We’re going to take it up next. But it’s an important project and we
anticipate today that we’re going to move ahead today with a milestone out at the airport
and I encourage you to support that today. Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve accepting McKnight Construction as the lowest bid for
the terminal construction project at a base bid of $25,254,575 with Additive
Alternate No. 1 - $296,639 and Additive Alternate No. 2 - $371,859. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 7, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
14
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I asked for this to be pulled because I’ve
got some concern with the participation we talked about with the [inaudible], with what
those figures was going to be, small business, women-owned type businesses, and I never
did get that back. I don’t know where we are with that. I’m still at a loss. Can
somebody address that to tell us what we’ve got?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got some people from the airport here today. Mr. Johnson,
you want to respond to the Commissioner’s questions?
Mr. Johnson: Thank you very much. Commissioner Williams, we are looking,
and I can kind of break this down for you and maybe help. With our construction
manager, the person who is going to oversee the project, the commitment from that part
of the project is 25.4% DBE participation.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Johnson, I asked this questions in committee and I understand
when you said participation. I’m talking about dollars. I mean I need some clarity. For
too long we talked about the participation and probably it’s going be even more than that
participation and it depends on what kind of participation we’re talking about. I’m
talking about numbers as DEB person and the airport and along with this government,
making sure that local businesses and female owned businesses that can do business with
this construction, this new airport. I’m like the Mayor, I’m in favor, 100%. I think we
ought to – it something we ought to been aggressively doing. But I want to make sure
that local participation at a dollar amount is going to be to that amount.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. We can break it down. With local businesses that are going
to participate, small local businesses and other businesses that are located in the CSRA
area, there’s going to be $16 million.
Mr. Williams: All right, sir. And I’m going to hold you responsible, Mr.
Johnson, for being a banker, to see that that $16 million is spend in this community. I
mean you can’t hold anybody’s hand, Cedric, but being a banker, knowing how figures
work, I just want to make sure we don’t let all the money get out of Augusta that could be
in Augusta that help people in Augusta to grow. We talk about what we don’t have and
how we can’t progress, but we are not spending money in town that we could spend.
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams, if I could address what you mentioned.
The Aviation Commission back since 1999 has taken a strong commitment to make sure
any work and anything that was done out at the airport, that we to the best of our ability
include DBE and local people to do that work, and since 1999, and I won’t bore you with
the figures but I do have the figures that show that we put forth a very conscientious
effort to make sure that everybody had a fair opportunity to bid on work and also to do
work.
Mr. Williams:
Okay, Mr. Johnson, I heard what you said and I take it to heart.
I’m going to make a motion [inaudible] do our best effort and we make great effort to see
I’m going to make
things get done and they still don’t get done. But what I’m going do,
15
a motion that we approve this with you giving periodically a report back every six
months or something of that nature to let us know what participation done so we be
abreast of what’s going on up here and know that it is being spent with local people,
if any way possible.
Now we don’t expect people to make brick out of straw. If you
can’t buy in Augusta, we understand that. But there a lot of businesses, local businesses
in this town that don’t get an opportunity to share in what we do and want to make sure
Motion is to approve it, Mr. Mayor, with a six months report
that opportunity there.
back from the airport director – Mr. Johnson, not the director, not Mr. Boshears.
Buster got enough on his plate.
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner, you don’t think I got enough on my plate? I’m a
volunteer.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand.
The Clerk: Touché, Cedric.
Mr. Williams: But if I can get a second to that, I mean I think we can approve
this and get it done.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the contract subject to a
report every six months on minority business participation. Is there any further
discussion on this motion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations.
Mr. Johnson: Thank y’all very much. Really appreciate it.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to look for those construction trucks when I’m out there in
the morning. Get started on it.
Mr. Grantham: Give you a shovel.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, is number 42.
The Clerk:
16
42. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the CBD Neighborhood: 537 Walton Way, 541 Walton
Way, 545 Walton Way, (District 1, Super District 9); Meadowbrook Neighborhood:
3702 Old McDuffie Road, 2681 Barclay Street, (District 4, Super District 9);
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1533 Twelfth Street, 1366 Wrightsboro Road, 1637 ½
Forest Street, 1643 Forest Street, (District 2, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 2529 Dover Street, 2550 Dover Street, 2557 Dover Street, 2575
Dover Street, 2558 Lyman Street, 2537 Miles Street, 2549 Miles Street, (District 2,
nd
Super District 9); and waive 2 reading.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you wanted to delete some from that list; is that correct?
Mr. Russell:
As you know, there was a subcommittee meeting in reference to a
specific problem on Lyman, Dover and Miles Streets. That subcommittee still has work-
in-progress and it would be inappropriate at this time to pass this in reference to those
specific locations. That subcommittee should be reporting back in the next couple of
If you could delete the properties on Dover,
weeks. If you could delete the properties
Lyman and Miles Streets, approve the balance of the properties, and the ones I’ve
mentioned be brought back to you with a recommendation in the next couple of
weeks.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with
the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 56.
The Clerk:
56. Consider a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission to
retain the designation of Bethlehem as a Local Historic District.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Mr. Williams. Ms. Beard asked this be pulled. You
may have the last word, but we’re going to give her the first word.
(Laughter)
17
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I was just sort of wondering about this, because I thought the Augusta
Historical Society had recommended that we keep the designation.
Mr. Mayor: That was the Historic Preservation Commission, I believe, made that
recommendation.
Ms. Beard: And they made it to us and so it was the committee that decided to do
that?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Ms. Beard: I think the community needs to know that this probably isn’t the
proper way to go about doing this. I probably won’t be able to change anything, but I
think it’s very sad when people’s property will be taken from them, and I think we’re
making it very easy for the different groups to come in and do that. We have a lot of
things going on in our city right now, and also in the country. Things pertaining to
eminent domain, such as the redevelopment program that has just been – well, I guess it’s
in the House right now, they’re trying to determine whether it will be easier for
government to go in and simply take property and actually do it without the residents
knowing about it. And even with all of that not passing at this point, we can look at East
Boundary and the fact that information came out in the paper stating that they were
looking at taking 23 residences for a school. And the residents knew nothing about it.
That’s been about six months ago. They still haven’t fully decided what they are going to
do. But something is wrong with this. You also have, you have a couple of cases in
court, federal court, right now in reference to this, where land has been taken say in
Connecticut. The government feel that they could develop it so that more money than
what they were getting on the property was done. I think when people have worked hard,
that they should be able to make the decision about what happens to their property. I’m
for revitalization. There is no one who wants us, there’s no one who wants to see a
change in the Bethlehem Community more than I do. But I think there is a proper way to
do everything, and I think the way we are doing it is not. So I would like to have a vote,
and whether we vote, this is something I would like to vote against, because I think
rescinding that makes it easier for others to go in and take it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, agree with what Ms. Beard says
about taking property, and I don’t think that is going to take place, I don’t think that’s
what this vote is about, Ms. Beard. What has happened with the designation that been
put on these properties, there is a lot of neglect because the people can’t match, can’t do
what Historic Preservation guidelines call for. And they’re not able to even – the people
18
that you’re speaking about that want to do something for their property, they can’t do it in
the same fashion that it was set up back in the day they was set up. So this is going to
alleviate that by giving them an opportunity, those who can fix their properties, to fix
them to a certain standard that’s going to be [inaudible] with what’s in that area. But if
we don’t change it, the Historic Preservation guidelines are so strict. I remember when
we had somebody came with a roof they wanted to put in and [inaudible] and they
couldn’t put just a roof on. They had to put what the guidelines called for. These are
homes that beginning to deteriorate and fall down, begin to be drug infested because the,
the, the name Historic Preservation have put on them, not Historic Preservation, but the
designation put on Bethlehem saying it’s a historic district has not allowed it to grow, and
it’s dying faster. This is going to help us fix that. It’s a lot of good people. And I’m not
for taking property. This is not eminent domain. This is not about going in and taking
property. I think what it’s going allow to do is [inaudible] want to do something. There
are people who want to build in that area who said they can’t build because of the
stipulation that is attached to that. So I’m with you. I’m not for taking property, but I’m
for new life, for new growth, to shine in that area, for people that’s there to feel good
about what they’ve got and to start to fix up. But you can’t do it in the present condition.
They can’t do it with the present designation that’s on it. So I think this is going to be a
good move. I think it’s going to be something that we are going to be proud of, that we
are going to be able to see, that’s going to shine some light. In committee yesterday we
talked about the stuff that ANIC is doing on that same style, put some integrity there,
where people will be proud of where they live and what they doing. ANIC can’t even go
there to put a house in there because of the designation that’s on that property. But to
change that, going put some life in there, going to be put some fiber back, going to give
us the ability to work with some of those people through HEED and through out
[inaudible] that want to build. So it’s going to be a good thing. All we doing is taking
the name. That’s, that stigma that the name has, has got guidelines that we won’t be able
to live with, cause nobody can match that. And in fact, I’m really in support and I
wouldn’t sit here and agree to take progress from anybody or give anybody any leverage
to take property. In fact, the property values probably going to go up because I believe
you are going to see some people start to build and do some things in there and it’s going
I’d like to make a motion that
to be a plus. I’m truly convinced of that. So Mr. Mayor,
we approve this and get started.
Same time with the airport, those trucks pull up to the
airport, get started the same way.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to be certain of what Ms. Beard
is saying. We’re not talking about eminent domain are we? I want to be certain of that. I
share her feelings on that. But we’re – nowhere in this ordinance are we talking about
taking people’s property, are we?
19
Mr. Mayor: No, this just rescinds historic designation.
Ms. Beard: Excuse me, but I do believe we have – you see, this is our problem.
We pull a little something here, we pull a little something there, and you know we’ve
been doing this about 30 years. There’s no way the land owners can do this themselves.
They are going to need help and they should have had help. They should have had help
through HUD or other organizations and it shouldn’t be at the point that it is right now.
But if it is, then there are steps you need to take and there are a number of steps that
should be taken before you get to this point. And I’ve said that and I’m going to stick
with it and I think it’s sad because I had a lady come and say Ms. Beard, I need your
help, because I want to give my land to the city. She said I had so much trouble, they
keep writing me, can you help me do that? And yes, I’ll help her give it to the land bank.
Okay. But these people worked very hard for it and that shouldn’t be – and what he is
saying is easy. It sounds good but that is not the way to do it. There is a way to do it.
And I’m sorry. We’ve chosen not to. And I’m going to say that I really would have
thought that our housing and economic development program would have come up with
recommendations so that this could happen. Something similar to the Fall Creek project
in Indiana that we looked at. But I guess there is no such thing here in Augusta. I’ve
voice my opinion. I wish I could do more, but I can’t, but that’s my stance.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, let me say this in response to Ms. Beard and
wanting to make sure, not only so that the rights are protected but that progress be done,
but that we not have victims along with progress. And I think that was one of the reasons
on yesterday that the committee, after about 4-1/2 hours, from 10 o’clock until 2:30 or
2:45 [inaudible] wrestled not only with this ordinance but probably also on what you’re
talking about in reference to some other things that might happen. It is – I think you’ve
got a multi-step situation that is not easy, that’s going to have to be done in Bethlehem,
and I agree with from the standpoint that it’s going to have to be watched and monitored
and that was one of the reasons why today we’re not moving ahead with some of the
other things that were asked to be done. As an almost – y’all hear me say this many
times – as an almost victim of government and eminent domain and I said yesterday quite
bluntly [inaudible] good lawyer I probably would have been out of business. But we
were able to fight, we were able to maintain where we are and I think the key to where
you’re talking about is of making sure that when progress is done that people are made
whole. And I think that’s an issue that city government has not come to grips with yet,
and I’m not going to support anything where the city would move in that venture
[inaudible] or whether it be any private group that would do that. Because I think people,
if they’re in one situation today, after progress is made, they ought to be in a better shape
the day after. If you don’t have a mortgage on March 1, you shouldn’t have a mortgage
rd
on the 3 of March, either. And I fully agree with you with that. What we deal with with
this ordinance was the fact that people that are in waiting to try and make investments
and some who actually already own property, and the bottom line in this game is money.
I think what was promised when this designation was put in and in somewhat was it
accidental or on purpose, and I stated this on yesterday in committee, under somewhat
20
false premise people were looking to hear the cavalry. Once you put in a historic
designation – but a historic designation, as you said, with no funding, no help, and even if
you put all the money in from HUD and directed every dime of it into the Bethlehem
area, you still would not have enough to do what you’re going to need to do that’s in
there and to make it right. Somehow or another you’re going to have to have the proper
investment that comes, and those who own property that are say not necessarily in
[inaudible] form right now but who want to come in, who own a lot of it, to say that they
thth
own 13 or 14 pieces, of property, they can do anything because the 15 and 16 piece
will not allow them to make one move, and I think that’s where we’re in a quandary. It
was not an easy decision to a point of say taking away the historical designation. We
even talked about the fact that through Historic Augusta, through the neighborhood, there
needs to be a historical accounting of those things that are historical in that neighborhood.
Not just old, but they need to be historical accounting, they need to be documented, they
need to be as such so that those we talked about those that are on a national federal
register you cannot be able to take and Mr. Smith can correct me on this, Mr. Mayor, but
that as long as that federal designation is there, which we have, there are certain things
we can’t go in and take federal money and do anything. So there’s still a layer of
protection that deals with it. But I thought Rev. Martin yesterday brought out a very
good point on Antioch, just on what they were trying to do and to build, just to get one
house down, to deal with aerial photo shots in Bethlehem, it was going to cost them more
in aerial photo shots than it was to be able to do anything with the house, to take down
something that was unlivable to be able to build something that would be able to give
progress to the neighborhood. So it was not done with a degree of [inaudible] through it,
and I’m fully in support of not letting us get out of hand to a point of where eminent
domain is abused by anybody. I think government does enough abusing of it, so I’m not
going to ever vote to [inaudible] right to put in anybody else’s hand. But what we dealt
with yesterday on trying to match and to deal with this ordinance was in a first step basis
to try and get some of those who are in waiting and who want to do something in
Bethlehem, and also encourage and help give support to those people in there who have a
home, that need to be able to do something with it, that can’t get support in there right
now because the existing and surrounding property will not allow lenders or anybody else
to come in and to help them with it. So we were not wanting to just wipe this off the
book and just deal with it altogether and I think, too, in checking the background of
HPC’s vote there was a split vote with two motions in there and [inaudible] by one vote,
so they were not in a unanimous agreement to a point of what was done with HPC, so I
understand and feel your caution in that area and it should be taken not just to heart, it
should be taken in policy, and I think as we move along with what HND wants to
recommend or the Commission wants to recommend, we got to keep that in mind that we
don’t just get sweeping laws that allow properties to be taken. I’ve been there, done that,
it’s a terrible pain not knowing where you might be the next day because properties
around you may be lower value and you’re given just enough to get out of Dodge and
you’re out of a house or you’re out of business. I would never support that. I fought this
government and whipped ‘em at it and as a private citizen, I won’t be here after
December, but I promise you I’ll come back, Madame Commissioner, and fight from that
other side of the fence to make sure that that doesn’t happen. And I know I can probably
raise more hell out there than I can up here. So I will definitely work towards that. But I
21
think the ordinance form that’s in there, something has got to be done to a point that they
cannot be held under false pretenses, that the cavalry is coming because [inaudible] you
can’t [inaudible] in Bethlehem versus Summerville where they may turn down a $1
million house and as I said yesterday [inaudible] but I’ll take ten tens anytime
[inaudible]. So I think there is an unequal comparison of unfairness to a point of the
restrictions that are there, everything from a paint code and [inaudible] new houses that
might now even qualify to be built under that ordinance if you were putting them on the
[inaudible] and [inaudible] new homes and massive renovation done in the inner city. So
I support where you’re coming from with that. I would never do it, and the only reason
that I’m going to go ahead and vote with where the ordinance is going is to try and
restrict [inaudible] overall situation working in there. But I would never vote to deal with
passing on the eminent domain provision to anybody, this group. We got it, but as I said
before, I’ve [inaudible] abuse it and I sat here for three years and voted against every
condemnation that Richmond County proposed because I sat in that position of knowing
what the government can do to you when you’re trapped in that situation. So I would
never vote to impose something on somebody else that I wouldn’t dare let get imposed on
me without a dogfight. So I think your concern is very much warranted [inaudible] see
where it goes but at some point we’re going to have to do something different other than
letting it sit still.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yesterday as we discussed this and
passed this in Administrative Services, I sensed what Commissioner Beard is speaking of
and I did mention in there yesterday in the meeting that what I would like to see at
Bethlehem community is that we revitalize that. We have rehab money that we can work
with some of those homeowners that are there that will be able to renovate their homes
and also that we could start, we could start constructing mid-rise apartment houses there,
some single-family houses, with club house, walking track, those sort of things that we
need to look at funding to put in that area. And it’s a possibility that those fundings, that
we see what we have, federal fundings to do that, there has been some talk about the
Augusta Housing Authority and I think this would also give the opportunity for the
citizens in Gilbert Manor to relocate in better mid-rise, ultra-modern facilities over there,
and use the funding from Medical College of Georgia, partnership with Augusta Housing
Authority, to have fundings in there to relocate the citizens in Gilbert Manor to better
homes and also we be revitalizing that area and we have economic impact at the Medical
College of Georgia area and then also we could utilize the [inaudible] to come in and
work together and work on this project till it’s completed. That’s what I would like to see
done in the area and I agree with you, Ms. Beard, you want something beautiful in there
and you want homes and some funding for those individuals to remodel their homes and I
think we could use the rehab program to do the ones that want to stay there and the others
one we could revitalize and make that a beautiful community for all of the citizens of that
area.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
22
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hope I’m not missing something.
Maybe Mr. Pittman might need to come to the podium and explain to me, this is the first
step that we’ve got to do before we can do anything in there for the blight and the
stipulation under HPC that we can’t go in and do anything for any manner right now until
we get this first step passed to rescind this, so we can’t even tear down some of that stuff.
Commissioner Mays, you’re right, [inaudible] to take the aerial photograph of a home
they wanted to tear down, going to cost them over $30,000 to hire a specialist to come in.
He said he could have took a Polaroid and do what he needed to do but it was going to
cost them the extents of $30,000 to take pictures of this home because of the stipulation.
And what we are saying here today, this is the first step in order to start that process that
we can go in there, that the homeowners can go in and tear down if they want to, or fix an
area of they want to. They can’t meet the guidelines now. Now am I right, Mr. Pittman?
Am I missing it now? Explain something to me, please.
Mr. Pittman: Commissioner, the National Register Historic Designation of
Bethlehem, which is also enjoyed by Laney-Walker, will be more than sufficient to
protect the little bit of history that’s left in Bethlehem. And you’re absolutely correct in
your statement. All we’re doing – local historic designation is a privilege that’s granted
by this Commission and its basic purpose is to protect the intrinsic and economic values
and historical values of a neighborhood that is largely already built up. Unfortunately, in
walking through Bethlehem and in talking to the citizens of Bethlehem and in listening to
them speak at the December 16 hearing that HPC held, the vast majority of residents in
Bethlehem believe that the local historic designation has been an impediment to the
progress in Bethlehem and has not allowed Bethlehem to enjoy the ability to attract
investors to come in to build new houses. The key to that is that the houses that – use
ANIC as an example – the houses that ANIC are building in Laney-Walker don’t fall
under the cumbersome rules and regulations of a local historic district as do the houses in
Bethlehem. So therefore, ANIC is able to build those houses at less cost. But I’ve gone
through those houses and enjoy going through them, and there is absolutely – they are
absolutely fine houses for a National Historic District. They are built with a history
theme or façade, if you will, and I honestly believe and sincerely believe that we need to
engage in Bethlehem in a similar effort.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Pittman, I think we are now looking at Olde Town. What is your
opinion of Olde Town becoming a National/State Historic?
Mr. Pittman: Local Historic District?
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Pittman: I have to frankly confess, Commissioner, that I have reservations. It
will depend on – and we’ve already done a survey of Olde Town – it will depend on the
boundary that is established for Olde Town. Because unfortunately when you look at the
true historic geographic area that Olde Town includes, there are a number of shotgun
houses and a lot of empty lots, so that’s a portion of Olde Town that concerns me as
much as Bethlehem.
23
Ms. Beard: And Mr. Pittman, when you say at least 50% of the houses in
Bethlehem have been taken down, how did that happen?
Mr. Pittman: It’s a long story, Commissioner. Bethlehem has a long and proud
history. It was basically founded by a free men and women as a means of achieving
economic independence through home ownership. They built what they could afford to
build, which was small houses. Those houses lasted and survived and fulfilled a useful
purpose until sometime after World War II. And as time has gone along, those houses
are no longer considered to be standard housing or proper housing. And part of the
problem, Commissioner, is the size of the houses. So I’m hoping that if the Commission
agrees today to rescind the Bethlehem designation, we can go into Bethlehem, the city
can, and do a proper job of rebuilding the neighborhood, but build larger houses by
combining some of those smaller lots.
Ms. Beard: Well, I am for that, and this is exactly what I am after. But you
know, I think you are just really using this as a smoke screen for no real progress
[inaudible] and I’ll just move on to this because it’s another problem that I do have. You
have all of these houses that are being condemned today. What do you think is going to
become of all of this property now? And you’re asking the owners to pay what? Over
$4,000 to tear the house down. And after that, you’re going to have problems with
weeds, you know, grass grows most of the year here, then you’re going to ask them to
keep it clean. You’re not going to have the funds to do this. And then you’re going to
take – you have many things going on here. Bethlehem can be revitalized. I want to see
that. I want to see a better Augusta. I ask how did all of this happen? You know, I was
in the inner city a few weeks ago. I was visiting someone. And I looked across the street.
And I said what happened to the windows and what happened to the doors? Every
window and every door had been taken out of the house. I reported it and they said we’re
having that all over the city, the inner city. And would you believe they are actually
taking windows and doors, and it is considered nothing, but I understand they’re selling
them to antique shops and things of that nature. So there must be something about it. I
think we all have our little niche and we’re missing the real point. The point of really
getting in there and making a difference.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor to
approve rescinding the historic, the local historic district designation of Bethlehem. All
in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, I would refer you back to the supplemental
agenda that we received from Administrative Services. On the third page there is a list of
items headlined “Items Deferred and/or Received as Information.” And if you would,
what we’d like to do is go ahead and just, just defer and receive these items as
information, unless there is some reason you want to discuss something that would come
24
up later for discussion, so we don’t need to discuss it today. Mr. Chairman, you want to
make a motion to deal with these items, 43 through 61, since they’re from your
committee, Mr. Hankerson? The items you wanted to defer and receive as information
today?
Mr. Hankerson: I need to make a motion to –
The Clerk: Sort of like the consent agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: Motion that we –
consent? I thought they were already on
consent.
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Mayor:You need to make a motion to defer
They were not on consent.
and/or receive these items as indicated on the supplemental agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion on any of these items?
They’ll all come back at the appropriate time.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ITEMS DEFERRED OR RECEIVED AS
INFORMATION:
43. Receive as information update/report for the Economic Development
Ombudsman Initiative.
44. Approve authorization to revise program design for HOME Program.
50. Discuss City of Augusta Reduction in Force Policy.
51. Discuss City of Augusta Career Ladder Implementation.
52. Approve the reprogramming of $60,000.00 in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Economic Development Loan Fund Program
to the Business Education Training Program.
53. Approve Final Version of Year 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan and Year 2005
Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter
Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds.
54. Adopt Resolution authorizing Submission Year 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan
and Year 2005 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS funds.
55. Approve authorization to establish Augusta Redevelopment Corporation.
59. Discuss properties in the Land Bank Authority. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
25
60. Discuss the organization and/or reorganization of Enterprise funded
departments. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
61. Discuss status of Augusta’s Comprehensive Personnel Policy Manual.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: For the members in our audience, could I read those numbers because
they are somewhat puzzled.
Mr. Mayor: Please go ahead.
The Clerk: That motion included items 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60 and
61.
Mr. Mayor: Now we will go to our regular agenda, which is on page 8 of the
agenda. We’ll take up those planning issues next.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
38. Z-05-09 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Henry Ferrero requesting a Special
Exception per Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County to allow a construction trailer for The Village at Goshen
Subdivision affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen
Road, 350 feet, more or less, east of where the centerline of Goshen Lake Drive
South extended intersects and contains approximately 43 acres. (Tax Map 199
Parcel 88) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Patty: Gentlemen, ladies, this is – I put number 38 and 39 on your agenda not
because there is any controversy or really any interest in this other than the fact that this
is a major investment going on in south Richmond County that I want y’all to be aware
of. We hear that there is not much going on in Richmond County but I submit that there
is. This is one of several things of this nature. This is a 43 acre development, 400 units
of patio homes and town homes. They’re going to sell in the $100,000 to $160,000
range. They’re building a large lake and about 60 acres of green space is going to be
preserved around that lake, and the development here, just be able to look at the plan he’s
got I think would be worth your while.
Mr. Mayor: George, you want to introduce the developer to the Commission and
bring the plan up?
Mr. Patty: Henry Ferrero.
26
Mr. Ferrero: Good afternoon. If you have any questions about the project, I’d be
glad to respond to you. Do you want to see the rendition?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. If you want to hold it up and show it and show the folks what
you’re doing out there. It’s pretty exciting.
Mr. Ferrero: What we have here is similar to Brandon Wilde in west Augusta.
We have townhouses n the section here, 113 units. We have the pond here, detention
pond. And we have condominiums in this area here. We have also the area for the
clubhouse and we have the [inaudible]. We have walking trails and all kinds of
amenities. So that’s basically the project we’re doing there. The total of the investment
will total around $30 million and most of our buyers right now are from [inaudible] group
of investors of about 60 units. [inaudible] We are [inaudible] to the tune of 60% of the
project at the present time.
Mr. Mayor: When do you anticipate beginning construction on this?
Mr. Ferrero: We – when?
Mr. Mayor: Have you already started construction?
Mr. Ferrero: Yes. We started construction about a year ago. We have been
working on this project for ten years now. It’s been a long process [inaudible] and we
have a lot of planning and work to do on this project. So the houses would start this
month most likely, and we expect to finish Phase I and Phase II this year, and Phase III
next year. So that’s basically what we have.
Mr. Grantham: What’s the average sales price of these units?
Mr. Ferrero: It’s about $100,000. We have units from $100,000 for the condos to
$160,000 for the townhouses.
Mr. Grantham: I see. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy, you want to make a motion? Why don’t you do it on items
38 and 39 together?
Mr. Smith: I want to say we’re very excited about this development. And Henry
[inaudible] possibility of a hotel going in there, too?
Mr. Ferrero: Yes, we have a request from the Lancaster Group in Houston. They
want to put a hotel [inaudible] here. So they [inaudible] 100 units there. [inaudible] so I
think it would be very [inaudible]. That would be also [inaudible] hotel. That would be
very beneficial. We have [inaudible] right across the street and the amenities that we
have [inaudible] club house, pool, all kind of amenities.
27
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve items number 38 and 39.
PLANNING:
38. Z-05-09 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Henry Ferrero requesting a Special
Exception per Section 8-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County to allow a construction trailer for The Village at Goshen
Subdivision affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen
Road, 350 feet, more or less, east of where the centerline of Goshen Lake Drive
South extended intersects and contains approximately 43 acres. (Tax Map 199
Parcel 88) DISTRICT 8
39. Z-05-10 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Henry Ferrero requesting a Special
Exception per Section 8-2 (e) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County to allow a sales trailer for The Village at Goshen Subdivision
affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Goshen Road, 350
feet, more or less, east of where the centerline of Goshen Lake Drive South extended
intersects and contains approximately 43 acres. (Tax Map 199 Parcel 88)
DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Williams, was
your hand up?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to congratulate and thank this
young man for this project and I think the news media ought to turn around and get a shot
of this and make sure it’s on the front page of the Chronicle in the morning that there are
some things coming into Augusta and everything ain’t going out of Augusta as we been
told. We been knowing of this project for some time and we grateful that this
development been able to get off the ground and get things going. We know that this is
just the beginning. I talked with someone on yesterday who was talking about the
Applebee’s and what’s coming in south Augusta. I said once the infrastructure get in
place, now I don’t want to hear any complaining about the traffic, George, cause that’s
going to be the next thing, cause the growth is coming. That’s the only way we got left to
grow, and I think this developer being smart enough to get in on the ground floor. Now
it’s easy to catch a train once it gets to rolling, Mr. Mayor, but to get started, when
somebody got to put some wood in it, in the engine and get those steam engines pumped
up, it’s hard to do. But I’m just grateful to hear all this. And I just the community
embrace it and know that we are the second largest city in the state of Georgia and look
like we fixing to look like it and think like it and hopefully start to act like it. But I don’t
want to hold it up. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for making that motion. I’m with you 100%.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
28
Mr. Mayor: Yes, I was going to comment that Mr. Williams’ comments were
extremely appropriate, and it’s so good, too, that the wood is coming from the private
sector and they’re not coming to ask the government for the wood to fire up that engine.
It’s good to see the private investment out there. Willie?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I was going to say that I want to thank them for their
patience, because many times when you’ve got the financing, to just back up what you
said, you can go anywhere. And sometimes when you’ve waited a decade and you’re
trying to put things together and you run into one regulation after another, sometimes it
can be frustrating, and there can be easier places to go. So obviously you very much
want it to come here and we are very much glad to have you. So thank you for that
tenacity in dealing with us for that decade and for making this, you know, become a
reality. And we’re going to support you any way we possibly can from this government.
So thank you for staying that course with us.
Mr. Ferrero: Thank you very much. I appreciate it very much, everything you
have done for me.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We will vote on the motion that’s on the
floor, and that’s to approve items 38 and 39. All in favor of the motion please vote with
the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If I can, I’d like to take a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I got a call from the plant manager to Solo Cup. I don’t know
whether he talked with you or not, but he indicated to me that there was some discussion
about closing the plant in Augusta or another plant. They decided to close the other
plant. It was going to be between 75 and 100 new jobs just from Solo Cup that’s going to
be coming. So the ball is starting to roll and either you get on the ball or you get out of
the way. That’s all I can say.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: It’s all happened since Mr. Williams was elected Mayor Pro Tem.
Think that’s had something to do with it, Marion?
(Laughter)
29
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, can I ask if this is the same ball that he’s always been
talking about?
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Same ball.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll take up item 40 now.
The Clerk:
40. Z-05-11 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Bessie Stapleton requesting a Special
Exception per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County to establish a Family Personal Care Home affecting
property located at 1326 Eleventh Street and containing .09 acres. (Tax Map 59-2
Parcel 216) DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Stapleton present?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think Ms. Beard had talked to Ms. Stapleton and the
attorney and I think she wanted to pull that item, I believe.
Mr. Mayor: Did your client have a request before us today?
Mr. Allen: We talked with several Commissioners, also with Commissioner
Beard about taking that particular matter off the agenda today without prejudice. And we
also talked with the county attorney about it and he had not objection. We talked with
Mr. Patty about it and he had no objections. We’re just moving this body to take that
particular matter off the agenda for today so that we can get with Planning & Zoning and
come back with a later date without prejudice if there is no objection.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion? Ms. Beard, did you want to make the motion
to take this off the agenda?
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Allen: Thank you.
30
Mr. Mayor: I believe we’re up to number 45 now, Madame Clerk, if I haven’t
lost count. 45, is that the next one?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: What did I miss?
The Clerk: We’re at the finance portion, number 62. 63, the tax assessor’s board.
And those items are also on the administrative services regular agenda. They forwarded
those two items with no recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t see 45 on the administrative services –
The Clerk: Oh. I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: That’s why I – was that supposed to have been on there?
The Clerk: To receive as information. That item was received as information.
It’s item – it’s listed as item 43 on the consent agenda, administrative services. Has the
wrong number on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Okay?
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll make that correction in the minutes.
The Clerk: We’ll do that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Then we’ll move over to item – well, 57 and 58 on
administrative services and 62 and 63 on finance are the same items.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: So we’ll take up both those items concurrently, then.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll read those captions.
The Clerk:
57. Motion to authorize the Board of Assessors to work with Information
Technology to develop RFP’s and accept bids on a new CAMA and a complete
revaluation of all real estate parcels. The final contracts would be brought back to
the Commission for approval. (Referred from February 1 Commission meeting)
31
58. Motion to authorize the Board of Tax Assessors to advertise and accept bids
to perform a business audit by an outside vendor. Once the vendor is selected the
contractual agreement would come back to the Commission for approval. (Referred
from February 1 Commission meeting)
FINANCE:
62. Motion to authorize the Board of Assessors to work with Information
Technology to develop RFP’s and accept bids on a new CAMA and a complete
evaluation of all real estate parcels. The final contracts would be brought back to
The Commission for approval. (No recommendation from Finance Committee
February 7, 2005)
63. Motion to authorize the Board of Tax Assessors to advertise and accept bids
to perform a business audit by an outside vendor. Once the vendor is selected the
contractual agreement would come back to the Commission for approval. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee February 7, 2005)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you want to lead the discussion on these? You’re our
representative; right?
Mr. Grantham:
Yes, I will, Mr. Mayor. One more time. These two items are
ones that we have discussed previously and the key to the, to both of these requests is that
the key word that it will be brought back to this Commission for approval, based on the
RFPs and based on the bids that we’ll be going out for. These are the two requests that
have been made to the Board of Education. They have given us their consent and agreed
for this to take place and they’re in support, as well as the Tax Assessor’s board is in
support of this. This will pulled at our last meeting out of respect to the Commissioners
that wished to ask questions and I would hope that maybe those questions have been
answered in knowing that this will come back at a later date for final approval. I ask that,
I put in a motion that we approve these two items that are on the Finance and
Administrative Services agendas.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion to
approve both of these items, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Grantham.
The Clerk: Going to Engineering Services portion? Is that where you’re going,
Mr. Mayor?
32
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know where we’re going here. I think that’s next. That is
everything on our admin services supplemental agenda; is that right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve completed all the items on there?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Except for Mr. Hankerson’s –
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to reconsider. We’ll get to that when we finish the
other items.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So that will take us to Engineering Services then. Item number 64; is
that next, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: In the absence of the chairman and we did not have Engineering
Services Committee today, what I would ask in fairness, because we transferred a couple
of these items over to the consent agenda already. I think he probably had wanted to, to
refer them back to the committee, unless there are members that may want to have some
discussion or reports there that say go beyond the scope of just the committee, where they
may be in reference to city-wide projects being in public works, if there is a report ready
to be given in those type of items, so I can make a motion really based on that decision of
either sending back or if there is report that some of these committees may want to go
back. Ms. Bonner just handed me a note that the chairman did want us to hear the item
on 66 because there had been concerns from committee members and non-committee
members on that particular one. And if we decide, you know, Mr. Mayor, I guess the
decision of the Commission to hear those and I can make the appropriate motion
concerning them.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you go ahead and make a motion, Mr. Mays, and we’ll
move forward with the motion? And send 64, 65, 67, 68, 70 back and then we’ll hold 66.
33
Mr. Mays: Holding 66. Everything else can go back. We’ve sent the ones back
on 69 and 71.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Mays: And that’s 64, 65 –
Mr. Mayor: 67, 68 –
The Clerk: And 70. Those are the ones that are left.
Mr. Mayor: Ask the attorney. Item 68, is that item ready to disposed of today?
Mr. Shepard: I would request that you put that to [inaudible] so if you want to
address it today I asked that it be -
Mr. Mayor: If you want to want until the attorney arrives, or we could send it
back, either way.
Mr. Mays: You want it to go to the hill, or you want me to bury it? It may, it
may go to the cemetery today. We’ve got a lot to get through with. May have to re-inter
that one.
Mr. Williams: Send it back, then.
Mr. Grantham: Send it back.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not going anywhere.
Mr. Mays: What do we have? 64, 65 –
The Clerk: 67 –
Mr. Mays: - 67, 68 and 70.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
64. Update from staff regarding the renovations at the Joint Law Enforcement
Center. (Referred from January 21 Engineering Services)
65. Update from staff regarding the status of the St. Sebastian Project. (Referred
from January 21 Engineering Services)
67. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two transferring
$84,100.00 from project contingency to project engineering for the Alexander Drive
Project (CPB # 323-04-296823215). Also approve Supplemental Agreement Number
Three with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C.in the amount of $84,100.00 to
provide additional engineering services.
34
68. Motion for final approval of the abandonment of Leon Alley.
70. Approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for
the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for The Reserves,
Phase I.
Mr. Mays: I so move that those numbered items be forwarded back to the
Engineering Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Attorney have his hand up?
Mr. Shepard: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then from the former Mayor Pro Tem
please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That will take us to item 66 next.
The Clerk:
66. Report from Planning/Public Works regarding the number of projects for
site plans that are currently in the system for approval. (Referred from January 21
Engineering Services)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, who is bringing us that report today? Terry is? All
right, okay.
Ms. Turner: Staff originally was coming to you with recommendation to take this
back to committee [inaudible]. I will say that staff has furnished Mr. Cheek, so that he
can pass it on to the Engineering Services Committee, a list of the projects as of January
24 at 5:00 p.m., which is the original date that he gave us for the report. Since that time,
we have had several projects that have been completed off of that list, and I am ready to
submit that, as well. Mr. Cheek does have a copy of that, as well, along with copies for
the Engineering Services Committee. So I will leave it to your pleasure whether we
discuss this today or whether we defer it back to committee.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have a written report?
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir, I do.
35
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you go ahead and distribute those? When people look at
them they can determine whether they want to get into a discussion today.
Ms. Turner: Mr. Russell, there’s actually two sets of reports. One shows the
projects as of January 24 and the other one shows the projects that were completed as of
February 7, which was the original date of the Engineering Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: So the one that matters is the one that has the deletions on it? Is that
what you’re saying?
Ms. Turner: Those are the most current [inaudible] Engineering Services
Committee. We had made quite a bit of progress in the time frame of the time being done
and the Engineering Services Committee and I felt it only fair to reflect those items of
progress during that time period.
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, is it your pleasure to discuss this today or
would you like to hold the discussion for the next Engineering Service meeting to digest
this information? Would you like a little time to look over this and go back to the
committee? Willie?
Mr. Mays: That’s fine with this Commissioner, unless they have something from
staff to add to what’s here, because I see what’s here and I see what’s been eliminated
and I guess probably the questions that might come forth are the ones that are still
ongoing, are they say continuous plans or something that maybe the developer has
abandoned or has to be changed? I’m not quite sure where the next step would take us to,
and maybe that might be done better by perusing what’s here and there, and getting that
into committee, to ask that particular question about some of those, unless there’s some
different information about what is here at this point.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can suggest what would be appropriate –
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Russell: - to let y’all review that and if you have any other questions we
would like to bring it back up in committee again and move forward in that direction. I
think with your pleasure we’d like to do that.
Ms. Turner: And Mr. Mays, to partially answer your question, there may have
been more projects that have been completed since then. We’ve had certainly another
week since that time, and some of the older projects are state and federal projects that
may have gone on without us.
Mr. Mayor: And then, too, you may have had projects added to the list.
36
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir. And the reason we did not update it past January 24 was
January 24 was the date that Mr. Cheek had asked for the report to be done, so there are
projects that have been added to it but naturally they would be under 30 days old.
Mr. Mayor: Is it the pleasure of the Commission then to refer this discussion
to the Engineering Services Committee?
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second –
Ms. Smith: If I may, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: The information that, the information that was presented as of
January 24, in the backup information the request, as I understood it, was for Public
Works to provide a status on projects in the planned review process. And what I have is
certainly a more abbreviated report than has been provided by Terry, and unfortunately I
had not had an opportunity to see this document. But what I do have is an abbreviated
report that indicates that in January of 2005, 17 site plan reviews were completed, 13
were approved, 6 were disapproved, and we have – excuse me, 4 were disapproved, and
we have 6 that were submitted but have not yet been reviewed. As of January 24, there
were more plans than that, that were in the system that had not been completed. The
report that I have does not address final plats or development plans because the
information in this backup for this particular agenda item specifically requested
information on site plans, so that is what has been provided. I do have and can provide to
you, if you are interested, before the end of the meeting the status of the projects that are
on this list, because I do have that report with me, but I did not make copies of it for
everyone, such that you will be up to date as of today on the status of the items that are
on this report from Planning & Zoning. We do have several [inaudible] and I can give
you the dates for when these [inaudible] as well. So I’m not sure where we continue to
have a [inaudible] but apparently we need to meet to discuss this before we bring it
before the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: If you have brought some additional information, it would be helpful
if you would go ahead and distribute it to the Commissioners while they’re here.
Ms. Smith: That’s why I said –
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion really to have discussion at the committee
meeting so there may be additional information that would be developed as the two of
you meet prior to that committee meeting and you can have a more complete discussion
on the issue. The chairman is not here to restate what the intent of the request was.
37
Ms. Smith: Well, I only read the information that was actually in the agenda
books.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve read more than I have.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: I haven’t gotten to that yet.
Ms. Smith: And as I indicated, I do have a report. It’s about 20 pages long,
though, because it’s raw data. My preference would be to mark this up and to distribute
this before the end of the Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with the director bringing us back
information that we could review on our own today, but what I’m going to suggest and I
don’t necessarily think it has to be a part of the motion, if we’re going to send this back to
committee, my suggestion would be since Public Works affects every district city wide,
and we’re talking about things that are not just confined to the committee, is that in the
interim between the committee meeting, that committee members and non-committee
members would communicate to the administrator or the public works – my personal
preference would be through the administrator – and then ask if there are uncertainties as
to what you need to find out more specifically than what may be there so that we can
narrow the focus down to what you are really trying to aim for and what you’re asking
for and see whether or not you’ve got a gap that’s there. And then I think that will help
by the time you get to committee meeting, that some of that information can already be
assembled by staff and be able to be provided for committee members and non-
committee members, and I think that would expedite some time, it would get us to a
closer picture of what the chairman has asked for, and as well as what some of you who
might not be on the committee have asked for and striving to get in terms of finalization
of that information. That’s just a suggestion. If we could do that and that gets us two
weeks to work on that and it’s already in place and to be able to fine tune that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little bit concerned about the report
I got here, the first report out of Planning Commission, I guess, as to not completion as to
what it is and if it’s going concern the Public Works as well, why hadn’t they got together
before? And I hear Ms. Smith say that they need to meet But before something like this
is passed out to this body, I would think there would be some explanation as to – I mean
when you look at the [inaudible] looking at on some of these items and then some, you
know, maybe with a small amount of days, but this is – I don’t think this is the way
government or the way any business should operate, would give me the impression that
something is really going wrong somewhere. And I just think that before these type
38
documents is passed out to this elected body, ought to be done with more thought to them
as to – even if this was the correct document, ought to have some reasoning behind it.
And I’m a little concerned about that as well. And you know, we been talking about this
for a while. It ain’t just started. This ain’t the first time this here come up and we need to
be careful when we put out information like this and make it look like – and I don’t mean
make it look like, but that what it does. It gives the impression that something is not
going right. We got enough stuff going wrong and we know all about that. I mean this
body know all about that. But I just think we ought to be careful before we pass out any
information that’s going affect somebody else like this and not having a conversation
with somebody before we do that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Yes, Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. I’m going to speak and follow up on what the Mayor
Pro Tem just said. That’s in regard to the request by the chairman of Public Works, and
if I’m reading this report correctly, it says, or reading this agenda item correctly, it says
report from Planning/Public Works and so I don’t understanding how both departments
did not know of the request if this is the form in which he put it. And if that’s the case, I
think going through the Administrator, as Mr. Mays alluded, is very important, but also to
the fact that when that happens that it should be left up to these departments to get
together and bring us the proper reports that the Mayor Pro Tem just mentioned. So you
know, to come in and say that I hadn’t seen this or hadn’t worked on this, then I have
somewhat of a problem since I see it in writing right now. And so that’s my point, that I
think they need to get together under the administrator’s supervision to bring us the
information and so whether we’re not guessing as for as the information we’re receiving,
whether that’s right or not. And I’m taking it [inaudible] being right.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion on the floor to move this discussion to the
committee, so I’m not going to allow the board to pre-empt the motion. So if we can,
let’s vote on the motion, and if it’s the will of the Commission to discuss this today, then
the motion can be defeated and we’ll move on with the discussion today. But in respect to
the motion maker and the person who seconded it and those who support it, we’ll call the
question on the motion to move this discussion to the Engineering Services Committee.
All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get the reports cleaned up, Mr. Russell, and have an accurate
report at the committee meeting.
Mr. Williams: We’ll talk about it later.
Mr. Mayor: We will. Okay. The next item on the agenda is item number 73.
You want to read the caption, please, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
39
ATTORNEY:
73. An Ordinance to amend the Code of Augusta-Richmond County By
amendment of Section 1-2-30(b) which was amended by Ordinance No. 6754
Enacted January 4, 2005 and authorized the expedited appointment to the Office of
Administrator. To conform the number of candidates presented by the Mayor
under the Augusta-Richmond County Code to the number of candidates for whom
information must be released pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(a)7: and or repeal all
Ordinances in conflict herewith; and to provide an effective date.
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody need the attorney to explain this?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Counselor?
Mr. Bell: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, the major change of this ordinance
proposal was the – the previous ordinance required the Mayor to present three candidates.
This allows the Mayor to present up to as many as three candidates. This change
coincides with the recent appointment of Mr. Russell.
Mr. Mayor: This formalizes in writing the action of the Commission in amending
the ordinance to allow the appointment of Mr. Russell; is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Bell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Just puts it in writing?
Mr. Bell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I think we said when we came out that we had that
right to do that and we can change back to three or whatever. I mean I’m a little bit
confused – well, I guess I’m a lot confused, but I’m a little bit confused on this issue
about why was it necessary to even do this ordinance if we had the leverage and the
authority to do it then and we done that and that’s history. Are we going to pay the
attorneys – and I said “s” – to write back and forth when we get ready to do something
different next time? I mean I’m worried about that now. And I just don’t see the
importance of the ordinance being rewritten. We had the authorization to do it and we
done it as a body and we said we could change it back if we need so by six votes. But
now if the attorney wrote this up, when we get ready to do something else he got to write
up another one and we got to turn around and vote on it, but we [inaudible] and he getting
paid. Is that the proper way?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I may come to the defense of the attorney.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
40
Mr. Mayor: Because I think when you talk about ordinances that you want to be
very precise in your language cause words have meaning in courts of law, and when we
came out of that meeting that evening and the Commission was preparing to take action
with respect to changing the ordinance, that communication from the attorney was
handwritten I think on a draft of the original ordinance or something. But what the
attorney had to do was go back and take that and put that into ordinance form so it
conformed to the language and the words that we use when we write these ordinances.
And so the attorney has brought forward today the legal document that codifies what was
handwritten and scribbled on note paper that night and entered into the minutes of the
Commission approval. It’s something you need to do. That’s –
Mr. Williams: Okay. I agree, Mr. Mayor. I agree [inaudible] and the attorney’s
my friend, he’s my attorney. But we paid him that day and we paying him today, too, for
the same thing. That’s all I’m getting at. But I got no problem. If I need to make a
motion I will go ahead. I just –
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: A motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Bell: If I may, the previous ordinance, we would essentially abolish the
previous ordinance, we’re reinstating the original language of [inaudible].
The Clerk: [inaudible] was the one that enacted to expedite the appointment of
Mr. Russell. This ordinance is reinstating the original language back into the [inaudible].
So that’s what that is.
Mr. Mayor: So it changes “three” to “up to three.”
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: It makes it clean. We have a motion and there has been a second.
Mr. Hankerson had his hand up, so we’ll recognize the chairman of Administrative
Services.
Mr. Hankerson: I think Ms. Bonner just brought out what I was going to say. It
changed the language of the Mayor presenting three candidates. I think that the
[inaudible] ordinance, the current ordinance say, but now you can present 1, 2 or 3 now.
That was the change that, also that was in here to make it clear.
41
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. All in favor of the motion then please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Boyles: Is this the Russell Amendment?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Whatever you wish to call it.
Mr. Mays: We’re on a good, happy time today. I’m going to vote for it. We are
changing, we’re not reinstating, I just wanted to make that clear.
The Clerk: Yes. Okay.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And we said when we were going to do changes we were
going to talk about changes. We’re not reinstating. Everybody clear on that? Okay. So
you’re actually changing, not reinstating. It’s not going back to what it was.
Mr. Mayor: No.
Mr. Mays: It’s going back to something different. Okay, then. All right.
Mr. Mayor: It’s going to what we want it to say.
Mr. Mays: Well, not necessarily. I wouldn’t say that cause making an ordinance
change we’ve not discussed, if we going back to what was in there then there would not
need to be a discussion [inaudible] so I’m going to keep peace and harmony today, but I
think to a point if you’re going to have an ordinance change then it needs to be discussed
as we said we would discuss it if there were to be changes to the ordinance. Now that
was what we discussed in legal, not what we are voting on today. But to keep peace and
harmony I’m going to vote and put that down there as a yes. It’s a good day for me
today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: I want that on the record to be clear, that ain’t what we talking about.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, if you’d publish the vote, please.
The Clerk: To reinstate, that’s what the -
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Hankerson: Do we have to have any readings?
42
The Clerk: This [inaudible] a second reading.
Mr. Hankerson: Second reading?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Commissioner Hankerson for the purpose
of asking for a reconsideration of an item on the agenda.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to reconsider item number
60.
I want to discuss that. The reason I placed this on the agenda.
60. Discuss the organization and/or reorganization of Enterprise funded
departments. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider item number 60. Is there a second to
that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Send.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion to reconsider? All
in favor of the motion to reconsider please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, item number 60 is back on the table, Mr. Hankerson.
60. Discuss the organization and/or reorganization of Enterprise funded
departments. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: You wanted to discuss it?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, the reason I placed this item on the agenda
is because I have concerns. We want to treat all of our employees right and equal with
reclassifications, pay raises and so forth. But periodically we have the enterprise funded
departments come before us asking for, requesting, asking us for salary increases,
reclassification, costly reorganization of departments, at a time when other employees
cannot get a raise because of the budget restraints. I think that when the Commission
passes a budget restraint, budget cuts, it should be for all employees, and not just for part
of the employees. We have discussed this before and it really causing a problem with the
employees. They are, some of them are really upset about it. Once we, I think when it
came up before we made a comment if you have two clerks sitting in a restaurant, they
are eating, they are friends, and they just read in the paper that we had budget cuts, no
pay increases will be given unless it’s extreme emergencies, and one clerk says well, I
43
got my raise. I think that creates a problem. I think that we should – we are a
consolidated government. Regardless of if it is enterprises funded or not. This one
government. And when we say that we have budget restraints, I think that all
departments should adhere to the same hiring policies, promotions, reorganization,
reclassifications, regarding the budget cuts and restraints. And I hope that we would look
at this seriously today and decide that we only do – I think the administrator asked when
they presented the budget that only the emergency positions – if you come to us, it’s
emergency I can understand that, but I see more departments, the enterprise departments
that come, and they come with their reclassification and some reorganization of
departments. It cause a disparity. Now I’d like for our, I’d like for Ms. Pelaez to, if you
would come and tell us what kind of problem does this cause when we are trying to – we
did a study for reclassification, we are trying to make all employees’ salaries equal. If
you are a, if you are a secretary or you are an administrative assistant or whatever your
job title may be for one department, that the job classifications are the same and the
salaries are the same, then they ought to remain the same regardless of what department
you go into, if that’s the job description. And we’re trying to reclassify and correct these
disparities and if we continue to allow some departments giving these increases and
sometime increases and reorganizations could mean $10,000 or $6,000 the
reclassification studies. I mean one employee can get that kind of increase. And what
kind of problem does that create for HR, for the employees for this government?
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. [inaudible] I’m very much willing
and able to discuss this issue because we have received the telephone calls from those
employees that are not in the enterprise funded departments. And although we have
made sure that the enterprise fund reclassifications fit to our current salary grade levels,
that a secretary is the same grade in a enterprise fund department as it is in a general fund
department, essentially is what happening is you are creating salary disparities between
those two positions and essentially they’re performing the same type of duties. And so
that creates compression among those types of positions because you are allowing this
person in the enterprise fund to make $10,000 more than the secretary in the general
fund. So it’s a morale problem as well as we are creating salary disparities between those
positions. Because in our system we don’t distinguish between enterprise or not when we
run a salary study. It’s looking at all the salaries, regardless of the department in which
that person sits.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Administrator, you see any problems with this?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Hankerson, as I stated in committee yesterday, each
of those that have come forth, I’ve taken a position that we should not do that, based on
the fact of equality between positions there. It is a policy decision, and to argue the other
side you’ve got in some cases specific positions, in the airport or some place like that,
that might not be the exact same as the other positions, but I’m of the same opinion as our
personnel director that a secretary is a secretary is a secretary and should be funded
equally across the board, as we have with the general fund or other areas there. That is a
policy decision. Those other areas do have funding available occasion and that’s been
44
the will of the Commission to do those. We recognize that. And have moved forward
with that.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, sir. And I see that we – Mr. Cheek had on the
agenda about career ladder, so I’m not going to get into that in my conversation today. I
did yesterday in Administrative Services, employees that have been here for quite a long
time, 20 and 21 years, 25 years, and someone come in new and supervise them or make
more – the salary is larger than theirs. We know that we promote by qualifications. I
support that. But you have – we have some well-qualified employees that have been on
the job for 25 years. I think if you’ve been on your job for 25 years and you don’t know
your job, that there is something wrong with your evaluation. I don’t think you should be
here if you’ve been on the job 25 years and you haven’t learned it. But I think we are
going to address that later on. But I would like to see today that we address this issue,
I would put it in the form of a motion that all departments would adhere to the
and
same hiring practice while we are in this budget crunch or budget restraints.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and a second. Is there discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know exactly how we can do it, I know it can be done, I’m
in agreement that we’ve got one family here and some eating out of one plate and some
don’t even have a plate. But we need to try to solve this by putting, putting everybody in
the same arena. To get paid out of. We have had people to transfer from one department
to another department because there was a situation where the enterprise funding
situation. And they made more money and it’s not just the airport, either. There’s other
departments. Something we really need to take a look at, whether it be through
personnel, through our administrator, or wherever, I think that is something, that there is
a disparity that we need to get straight and get a handle on. So I very much second that
motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor, let me just say this. I have no problem voting for
the motion and of trying to get us to where we get everybody on the same playing field.
This did come up in Administrative Services on yesterday. And while we’re looking, two
things, and I don’t necessarily know whether this should be an amendment to the motion
or not, but it’s just a suggestion. If staff, through HR and the administrator’s officer, are
going to look thoroughly at this, then I think we need to play on all sides of the scale in
how we deal with it. I stated yesterday that when the ones that came in from the airport
45
were voted on, I did vote to deal with those increases, and my reasoning was the fact that
when the airport, unlike the rest of the city – and I’m glad we didn’t do it – we raised a
millage rate on taxes to deal with public safety that we had to deal with, that went to the
Sheriff’s Department when we dealt with that issue on some of the salaries at the same
time we were asking the airport to take a reduction in force, which it did. And which
people lost their jobs and dealt with it, and dealt with a different budget type situation
than we, than we’ve dealt with over on our side of the fence. Now when it came up to a
point on budgeting matter and the resources were there to [inaudible] with some of those
people that are there – maybe that’s not the correct word or language to do with it – they
had the money in order to deal with it and to do it. But at the same time when we did not
deal with any reduction, glad we didn’t and I probably would not have ever voted for it,
but I think we need to look at it on a broad scope of what we are looking at when we do it
so that if we’re going to ask people to abide by outside areas, then we need to abide by
every rule that we’ve got. And I’m going to vote for the motion to do it cause I do think
there are some things that we need to look at in equalization. The other thing that I
would say that may be a bigger issue than how we deal with this equalization is the fact
that I think somebody just need to tell some folk plain and fast, Mr. Russell, that they
don’t determine what kind of department they are just because it’s some money that’s in
it. Now that’s something that the city needs to take a firm view in terms of how money
comes in. Now there was an issue when we consolidated that went back to how the city
of Augusta and two governments was spending money as it related to water. And what
was transferred over into the general fund out of water works because of the neglect of
that system. What that gets to is to a point that while there may be an enterprise fund of
selling water, that carries a restriction in terms of how much money and then down to a
zero effect of the transfer of those monies. So therefore because you may have an
enterprise fund, it doesn’t mean you can operate like one as you deal with you, with how
you’re dealing with your monies that you deal with with raises. And I think that’s a
clearer and bigger issue that needs to be dealt with while we are looking at this, because I
think you have some people that are under the impression that if they are selling
something and it’s making money then to a point that is the basis in terms of how we
operate and what we will propose with reorganization. That was the same exact thing
that the legislative delegation had asked the new government to get out of the business of
doing, and that was when it was threatened to put a water authority on top of the city and
we moved back out of dipping into those funds. The first act with preventing that to
happen would be stopping any department, and I just put that out there, just happened to
pop in my mind for some strange reason. But you know, I [inaudible] being clear what
you’re talking about. I know where this is going, why it popped up and why it’s out
there. So it needs to be nipped in that bud to a point, brought in, explained to them, and
say hey, this is not how you do this. Because there are bigger issues that have to be dealt
with and there are things in terms of where those revenues have to go that are defined,
they re system orientated, and they are not for the purpose of making an unequal balance
and how you deal with the raises. And that doesn’t have to be in the form a motion but I
think, Mr. Russell, as y’all consider that, I would hope that all of that’s taken in and that
type of process and I think if they understand that, then you won’t get those little
encampments built up where we have to have any arguments and discussion about them.
They can get to be non-issues that really don’t have to get to this floor, and get struck
46
down. So I’d rather for them to be dealt with, quite frankly, behind the scenes,
administratively, put a stop to them, and then that way it’s kind of like [inaudible] and
that’s where I’m at on that issue. [inaudible] equalization but we ought to do it broad
based on what’s there on how we’re dealing with it.
Mr. Mayor: Don?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I try to be a little brief with this, and I
understand, I seconded the motion in order to get it on the floor for discussion. And then
after hearing what Mr. Russell had to say in regards to some of the positions that may be
in an enterprise fund, it is certainly different in various positions within our departments
and from the standpoint of being funded out of general funds. A secretary is a secretary
and I understand that. However, there are expert positions that I think needs to be looked
at in some cases. And I think this should be left up to our administrator to bring those
particular individual issues to us when they come up. If we take it on a broad brush
swipe then I don’t think that we are treating those individuals as equal people because
they have either furthered education, they have either given us expert advice or they’ve
brought some form of expertise to the government that we would not have had had they
not been working for us. Second thing is that I’ve heard in the last several weeks and
months that we may want to create other enterprise situations, funds, for other operations
within our government. That being the case, why are we creating enterprise funds, you
know, if we’re not going to treat them in somewhat of a different manner, whether it be
in the form of positions or pay or whatever? What is the purpose of enterprise funds
based on what we currently have? And if we develop authorities, then what we are doing
is relinquishing certain regulations that we have within our own rights, and so by creating
authorities we are giving up something. We’re giving up the idea of having to authorize
a pay raise, having to authorize a position or a change. So I have a little problem with it
and I just think that this needs to go back to our administrator to bring us the type
information that we need in order to pass something that is this important to our
So I’m going to put in the form
government and to the people who are employed by us.
of a motion that we receive this – a substitute motion – we receive it as information
today and that we ask our Administrator to please come back with something that
we can be more definitive with and that we can put a little teeth in what we’re
getting ready to do.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
47
Mr. Hankerson: I’d say something and [inaudible] concerning Commissioner
Grantham’s comment. Enterprise fund, enterprise departments are enterprise
departments because they are there by privilege. They are recipients of funds. I don’t
think that gives them prestige to receive higher salaries because they do that. Take for
instance, we have other departments that receive fees every day, too. They’re not
designated as – I don’t think we call them enterprise. You have the tax office, you have
now the landfill now accepting fines and fees out there when someone come in with their
truck uncovered, do that qualify them for special privileges because they do that? I really
don’t think we should give those special privileges because of the fact that they are in that
position. Again I think it’s more creating disparity and I think it’s getting us away from
where we are trying to get with the reclassification when we ever get in a position to
reclassify, that we’re putting ourselves a larger gap between them employees and salaries.
But I think it still gives the administrator discretion on a particular employee that come
with special qualifications or something like that, that we would need at that time. I did
say emergencies and all of that, and that’s what it, that’s what he set it up for to be, but
we have departments come in with mass reclassification, reorganizations and so forth,
and every time that they come before us, we have some Commissioners not in favor of
that, and I think everybody should be on the same level now when it comes to these pay
increases.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Well, one comment, Mr. Mayor. And that’s what Commissioner
Hankerson said, I still agree, and I’m going to vote for his motion. But when I think
about the water department, when I think about Max’s department and how we privatized
some people to help in that area and people are still under the enterprise zone [sic]
making a real good salary, I saw, and then we done hired private contractor to come in to
do the work, but they still getting these real good salaries because of the enterprise zone
[sic]. We got some serious issues, now, we need to deal with and I’m in support of what
the Commissioner brought to the table and I’m going to vote for it. But that just one
example – not to pick on that department – when you think about what we doing in that
department, how much private money we are, how much public money we put in a
private organization to help with that department and these employees are still making a
higher pay grade and a higher salary than a lot of other people and doing less work. So I
mean I’m ready to vote, Mr. Mayor, but I think that’s a legitimate question that should
have been brought to the table and should have been brought before now.
Mr. Mayor: If there is no further discussion, we’ll go ahead and vote. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think Mr. Russell may have wanted to get in, but I wanted to ask as a
point of order, is there a real difference to a point that since the administrator is being
tasked to look at this through HR, if the substitute motion could not be – and I’m just
trying to get off the possibilities of one divisive point – that if the substitute motion could
not be taken as an amendment to the original motion because it’s going to happen – it’s
not something [inaudible] and to a point it gives them the chance to bring you something
48
back. Cause we’re not acting on one single thing today. And I think rather than splitting
this up to a point on two different procedural deals, if one could be incorporated
[inaudible] and I’m just [inaudible] opportunity to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would allow that to happen, but it’s going to take the
consent of the body to withdraw the substitute motion. So if the body consents to
withdrawing the substitute motion, because it belongs to the body once it’s made – if the
body consents to that, then we’ll entertain a motion to amend the original motion. Is
there any objection to withdrawing the substitute motion? There is none heard.
Mr. Hankerson: I accept that amendment.
Mr. Mayor: You’d like to accept that amendment? The maker accepts it. Is there
any objection to that? The motion will be amended as stated and then we’ll move ahead
with the vote on the original motion unless there’s more discussion. All in favor of the
motion then, as amended, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on motion with amendment)
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
75. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us up to our legal meeting, just prior to going into that,
the Chair would like to commend to the Commission rule 2.04, from the Rules of the
Commission, and we’ve had a very good meeting today, we’ve moved right along, so I
have not enforced the rule, but I just want to remind the Commissioners that discussions
must be made through the Chair. It’s not up to Commissioners to call people up and
directly question people before this body. All that has to be done through the Chair and
with the permission of the Chair, so I would just comment to you for future meetings to
please observe Rule 2.04 and certainly the Chair has been accommodating in the past and
will continue to be in the future.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I apologize on that and I didn’t 2.04, but I’m going
back and write it in my good book.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I’m not singling anybody out here. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, on 2.04-1 - if I might have the right for a minute for
personal privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead, Mr. Mays.
49
Mr. Mays: A non-controversial matter. Cause going into legal I know we got
some things to discuss, but I wanted to say not just to the Commission but a lot of people
watch our program, to our community, one thing that I hope that particularly, particularly
sports fans, basketball fans and those that are just concerned about young people. For the
first time in a long time our young people that are in the Richmond County public school
system, we have nine different teams that will be in the first round of our state playoffs.
And I’ve had the opportunity – I know that my own alma mater there at Josey to catch
probably at least twenty games this year, both in town and out of town, and we’ve got
two teams from both Josey and Hephzibah, and Josey’s boys, as well as Hephzibah girls,
have an opportunity to probably go undefeated and win state titles, as well as with
schools from Laney, Glenn Hills, Butler, Cross Creek, and Westside. And I think if you
want to really get into some real good entertainment that doesn’t cost you a lot of money,
that you can pick one of these games, five of them are at home this weekend, single
games, Friday and Saturday night, and it would just be good that if the community would
come out and support these schools, I think [inaudible] just in Gwinnett County recently,
South Gwinnett High School televised on ESPN, 5,000 at a high school basketball game.
And not any more talented – we’ve heard a lot about the different schools in that area last
year and we saw how successful our schools are able to compete and we probably
percentage wise have more schools in the state tournament right now than any area in the
whole state of Georgia and I think that’s a plus and I think it’s good that if you have
nothing else to do, it’s a good place to go. And if you got something else to do, postpone
it and take in one of the games, because I think it shows our young people a level of
support that we should have for them. Many communities yearn for this type of thing
because they never get into a state tournament, maybe for decades. And we’re able to do
it and take that for granted. So many times we hear about the negative things that happen
with bomb threats and all the other stuff [inaudible] great student athletes who have to
keep their grades up, who have to practice, and who get out and perform, who sell tickets
and who draw crowds and [inaudible] and so it’s great entertainment for this area, bring
some economic development and remember with those games taking place here, there are
parents and schools that have to come from other areas and provide money for coming
here. When you come from way across the state, that means you put money into the
pockets here. The only regret I have is that they couldn’t have found a way in the
Georgia High School Association to combine some of these games. Would have been
nice with eight of them here, to be able to play some of them on larger courts, whether it
been at the civic center or Augusta State. And be able to showcase our kids in a real first
class manner. But they are doing a great job and I’m just hoping that some of them will
be able [inaudible] different classifications to bring home some state titles to Augusta and
I encourage you to go out and support them.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. That brings to our legal meeting. We will at
this time assemble the agenda for that legal meeting. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
76. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
50
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Mayor: I have one item with respect to compensation of a public officer.
Need to make sure we have that. I think Mr. Williams had one real estate.
Mr. Williams: One real estate with the property on the river.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else have anything to put on the legal agenda?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I do have a question as to real estate.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a motion to go into session for the reasons
enumerated?
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will declare a five minute recess and then we’ll reconvene
in legal session.
[LEGAL MEETING]
77. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Motion carries 8-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
51
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 February 15, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
52