HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION MEETING July 21, 2009
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
JULY 21, 2009
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., July 21, 2009, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Beard, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles
and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Hatney, member of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by Bishop Rosa Williams, Pastor, Ever Faithful Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Bishop Williams, if you could come forward. I have a little something here
for you. And I would just like to thank you for that wonderful, inspiring and powerful prayer.
By His Honor Deke S. Copenhaver, Mayor to Bishop Rosa Williams. Greetings. By virtue of
the power and authority vested in me by the constitution and laws of this state and in pursuance
of your appointment I do hereby commission you the said Pastor of the Day in the City of
Augusta for providing outstanding, civic and spiritual guidance as one of God’s most dependable
and delightful minister’s in the gospel. Your service to your community is greatly valued
especially for this occasion. Given under my hand and the Seal of the Office of the Mayor at the
st
Municipal Building in the City of Augusta on the 21 Day of July in the Year of our Lord 2009.
Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
Employee of the Month
A. Mr. Robert Williams, R.F. Specialist, Information Technology Department.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, at this time we’d like to acknowledge our Employee of the Month,
Mr. Robert Williams, who’s an R.F. Specialist with our Information Technology Department
along with Ms. Tamika Allen and other members of the IT Department that would like to join the
Mayor in this presentation and recognition. Mr. Mayor, the Employee Recognition Committee
has selected Robert Williams as the June Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Mr.
Williams is an R.F. Specialist with the Information Technology Department under Director Ms.
Tamika Allen. He has been employed for three years. Mr. Williams was nominated by his
supervisor Steve Smead. Robert oversees the replacement of all the mobile data terminals. His
knowledge and expertise saves the city thousands of dollars in installation fees. He is well liked
by all departments and continues to go above and beyond his own responsibilities. He’s always
willing to help wherever he can. The committee felt that based on this nomination and Mr.
1
Williams dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta we would appreciate you in joining
us in awarding him the June Employee of the Month. Congratulations Robert. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And I’ve got a letter for you as well as something else special here the first
one to receive the second part of this. June 2009 Employee of the Month, Mr. Robert Williams,
Augusta Richmond County Information Technology Department. Dear Mr. Williams. On
behalf of the City of Augusta it is with great pleasure that I congratulate you for being
recognized as the Employee of the Month for June 2009. Your contribution to your organization
Augusta-Richmond County Government and the citizens of Augusta has earned you this
recognition. I appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty and your
outstanding work ethic. You are truly and asset to the Augusta-Richmond County Information
Technology Department and the citizens of Augusta Georgia. Please accept my personal
congratulations on this wonderful award. You are truly deserving of this recognition. Sincerely
yours, Deke Copenhaver. And also (APPLAUSE) a gift card to you. It’s our first Employee
Incentives Award. $100.00 gift card presented to you as well. (APPLAUSE)
The Clerk: Ms. Allen.
Ms. Allen: All I can do is actually echo exactly everything that was said by the
nominator as well as the Mayor, Archie. That’s what we call him, Archie is an exceptional,
exceptional person to work with. And he does any and everything. Goes above and beyond to
get the job done. That’s all you can ask of an employee and someone who’s going to support our
city. So he is a great example of an employee and better yet he’s a great example of what we
want a City of Augusta employee to do. So thank Archie for being such an asset for the
Information Technology Department. It makes my job a whole lot easier. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Jakki Coloure Concept Global Group. RE: Beauty Challenge Tour in Augusta.
The Clerk: Are you in the Chamber? Maybe they’re not here yet.
Mr. Mayor: They’re not here?
The Clerk: Apparently they’re not here yet. We’ll just move on.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll just move on to the consent and if they do come back we’ll give
them an opportunity to ---
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- speak to us.
2
The Clerk: All right. I call your attention to our consent agenda, which consists of items
1-25, items 1-25. For the benefit of any objectors to our Planning Petitions I will read those
petitions. If there are any objectors would you please signify your objections by raising your
hand once the petition is read. I call you attention to:
Item 4. Which is a request for Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home on
property located at 3409 Apple Jack Terrace.
Item 5. Is a petition requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home on
property located at 1833 Empress Court.
Item 6. Is a change of zoning request from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property at 2558 Windsor Spring Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Holland: I see some hands in the back.
Mr. Mayor: Which agenda item?
The Clerk: Number five?
Mr. Russell: Anybody else? Madame Clerk, we’ve got objectors to item 5.
The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-25.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the Planning Commission has notified us that the
petitioner for item 27 has been called away on an emergency situation and has requested that this
item be rescheduled to our next meeting. That’s item 27. Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: The petitioner’s wife had a traffic accident and she’s in the hospital and he has
asked that it be postponed to the next meeting.
The Clerk: Can we add that to the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Okay, the consent agenda consists of items 1-25 with the inclusion of item 27
being rescheduled to the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any additions to the ---
The Clerk: We need to pull five.
3
Mr. Mayor: --- and make sure five is pulled. Do we have any additions to the consent
agenda? Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think it’s probably appropriate that we go on and add
twenty-eight unless somebody wants to discuss it.
Mr. Mason: What number’s that?
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-eight.
Mr. Holland: What’s the numbers?
The Clerk: Twenty-eight.
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-eight?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowles: I’ve got some questions on that one, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any further items to be added to the consent? Hearing
none, any items to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item number 4 and number eleven.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Mayor, item number twenty-one.
Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, you have pulled number five?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-25 adding item #27. Pulling for
further discussion item #4, #5 and #11 and 21.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any further items to be pulled for discussion? If not if I
could get a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
4
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. FINAL PLAT – WEST WHEELER TOWNHOMES, PHASE 11 – S-798 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a
petition by Southern Partners, on behalf of ATC Development Corp., requesting final plat
approval for West Wheeler Townhomes, Phase II. This residential townhome subdivision is
located on Aruba Circle and contains 19 lots.
2. FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT – Richmond Estates, Phase I (fka Grandwood Estates,
Phase I) – S-714-I – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Crown Communities requesting to change
the name of Grandwood Estates, Phase I to Richmond Estates, Phase 1 and to revise the
front minimum building line from 30 feet as shown on the original final plat to 25 feet on
this revised final plat.
3. FINAL PLAT – MASON MCKNIGHT JR. PARKWAY – S-770 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a
petition by Cranston Engineering Group requesting final plat approval for Mason
McKnight Jr. Parkway (Approved on development plan named Mush Road). This roadway
is located between Scott Nixon Memorial Drive and Frontage Road and Flowing Wells
Road.
6. Z-09-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Johns S. Clarke, on behalf of Frances Clarke Mattox,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property containing approximately .8 acres and has been recently
assigned an address of 2558 Windsor Spring Road. (Part of Tax Map 142-0-002-00-0)
DISTRICT 4
PUBLIC SERVICES
7. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Title Six Sections 6-6-
45 and 6-6-46 relating to “License to Operate Arcades”, and “Amusement Game Permit”
so as to establish distance requirements for coin operated amusement machines; to repeal
all code sections and ordinances and parts of code sections and ordinances in conflict
herewith; to provide an effective date and of other purposes. (Approved by the Commission
July 7, 2009 – second reading)
8. Motion to accept a donation from the Mayor’s Masters Reception Committee in the
amount of $1000, and to approve a budget amendment to add $1000 to the Recreation and
Parks training budget. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 13, 2009)
9. Motion to approve Bid Item 09-116, new electrical service and court lighting at Newman
Tennis Center, to Hebbard Electric for $65,721.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 13, 2009)
10. Motion to approve Bid Item #09-092, Resurfacing of Tennis Courts, to Court Makers,
Inc., for $85,453.33. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 13, 2009)
PUBLIC SAFETY
12. Motion to approve a 2009 Budget amendment for the 2008 Congressionally Earmarked
Funding (COPS 2009 Technology Grant) to reflect increased revenue in the amount of
5
$350,000 which will be utilized to continue funding the Mobile Date Terminal (MDT)
Program. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 13, 2009)
13. Motion to approve a request from the CSRA Humane Society, Inc. for the renewal of
the current lease of the old City Stockade for continued use as a no-kill shelter for ten-year
period. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 13, 2009)
FINANCE
14. Motion to approve the replacement of 8 vehicles of the general fund departments
through the Georgia State Vehicle Contract program form the General Fund Capital
Outlay. (Approved by Finance Committee July 13, 2009)
15. Motion to accept/approve the recommendations of the Tax Assessor regarding the
request from Augusta Property Management, Inc. for a refund of taxes paid in 2008 on
properties located at 2462 Damascus Road, 2511 Cascade Drive and 2419 Baywood Drive.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 13, 2009)
16. Motion to approve the revised 2010 Budget Calendar. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 13, 2009)
17. Motion to approve a request from Good Neighbor Ministries for funding in the amount
of $25,000 for start-up operations for the Harrisburg Family Healthcare Clinic funded
from contingency and require that the organization furnish the City with the normal
contract and audit information. (Approved by Finance Committee July 13, 2009)
18. Motion to approve a request from the New Bethlehem Community Center for funding
in the amount of $25,000 to provide fencing and an outdoor water fountain for the existing
park/playground area funded from contingency and require that the organization furnish
the City with the normal contract and audit information. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 13, 2009)
19. Motion to approve transfer of ownership of Powder Works Chimney to the Augusta
Canal Authority and $52,000 for renovations. (Approved by Finance Committee July 13,
2009)
20. Motion to approve request to raise the Interment rates to reflect the actual cost of the
service and approve budget amendment for $10,000 for Acct. #101063110-52.13119.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 13, 2009)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
22. Motion to approve Co-Location Lease Terminations for Wireless Communications
Facilities on Utilities Jake Ellis Road, Kipling Road and Fairington Road Water Storage
Tanks. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 13, 2009)
23. Motion to approve a resolution creating street lighting districts. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 13, 2009)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on July
7,2009 and Special Called meeting held July 13, 2009.
6
APPOINTMENTS
25. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Doug Lively to fill the unexpired term due to
the resignation of Mr. Brad Kyzer on the Augusta Aviation Commission representing
District 8.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0. Items 1-3, 6-10, 12-20, 22-25, 27 (referred to next Commission
Meeting]
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, let’s go through the pulled items first.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
4. Z-09-33 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Mary Jackson, on behalf of Glen W. Jackson,
requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1
(h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property containing .26 acres and is known as 3409 Apple Jack Terrace. (Tax Map 134-1-
058-00-0) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson, I believe this was yours.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, could we get Mr. Patty to the podium, please?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: This is an application for a Family Personal Care Home which means they can
keep up to six people in the home. The actual number is decided by the rules of the Department
of Human Resources or whatever it’s called now. This particular home because it was closer
than 1200 feet to an existing home it had to go the Board or Zoning and Appeals to get a
variance. There were no objectors to it. That variance was granted. It came to the Planning
Commission, there were no objectors there. The Planning Commission approved it. The reasons
I think that it was probably approved with no objections is it’s a live in situation. People live in
the house and are going to have people living with them. It’s not a staff operated deal. The
house is 1680 square feet, three bedrooms a bath and a half and a fenced backyard and this is a
typical house in Apple Valley.
Mr. Johnson: So it’s pretty much family members.
Mr. Patty: Yes. Well, I don’t know who the tenants are. I’m sure the applicant’s
probably here but it is a family, it’s a house that the family lives and they will have individuals
living with them. Those individuals may or may not be family. Well it wouldn’t be family or
they wouldn’t need the approval so.
7
Mr. Johnson: Okay, is the people here, the Jackson family here?
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here?
The Clerk: Ms. Mary Jackson?
Mr. Mayor: And if you could just state your name and address for the record, please,
ma’am.
Ms. Jackson: My name is Mary Jackson. I live at 4982 Old Waynesboro Road in
Hephzibah.
Mr. Johnson: Okay um, so you all will be operating this Personal Care Home and will
you live there or?
Ms. Jackson: My parents actually live in the home. I’m going to work it out of there so
someone will always be at the home 24 hours a day.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, primarily family or a registered nurse or a caretaker, something like
that?
Ms. Jackson: Right, a care-taking situation.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. All right now the people outside of your parents that will be there.
Are they related or just friends or ---
Ms. Jackson: You mean the clients in the home?
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Jackson: It won’t be family members.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. And how many would you have in there.
Ms. Jackson: Six is the maximum that the state permits us to have now. We’re trying to
start out with maybe three or four to begin with. We’re trying to start off small scale.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, and you have no objections in the community with this?
Mr. Jackson: No, sir. Actually the community kind of likes the idea because Apple
Valley has gotten a bad reputation in the past few years. And after discussing what we were
doing and our plan of action in the neighborhood they all said they liked the idea that someone
would be up 24 hours. They know that we have monitoring systems set up onto the doors and
windows so no one can get out without us knowing about it given the recent situation in another
8
home. We called the county and had them sweep the streets out there. We’ve been trying to
clean up the area. So our neighbors are all for it.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, now is that a circle or is it like a, Apple Jack is that like a cul-de-
sac?
Ms. Jackson: It’s kind of like a circle. There’s a main road, which is Jonathan Circle ---
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Jackson: --- and Apple Jack Terrace actually curves around behind that street.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion to approve?
Mr. Johnson: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
5. Z-09-34 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Belinda Winfrey requesting a Special Exception to
establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .22 acres and is
known as 1833 Empress Court. (Tax Map 122-3-207-00-0) DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yeah, the two members of the community that live in the neighborhood
were unable to make the meeting with Mr. Patty due to sickness and an illness in the family and
one in the hospital. But she’s got a list of petitions against the Personal Care Home. So if we
could here from her and then from Mr. Patty.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record, please,
ma’am and if you could keep it to 5 minutes, please.
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
9
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am.
Ms. Speaker: Good afternoon. My name is Gensice Turner. I live at 1831 Empress
Court right next door to the Personal Care Home. The personal care home has been going on
illegally for a year and a half and she don’t want anybody to know. But my neighbors they have
wild parties, loud music all night long. Basically taking over, she doesn’t know where her
property line is. And I can’t sit on my front porch unless I’m being harassed. My name has been
called um, clothes hanging on the fences. It just not a place. We live in a small area in a circle
and everyone around, nobody this lady has people where they’re not even speaking to each other.
She goes from house to house trying to get people all upset in the neighborhood and it’s just not
appropriate I feel that a personal care home should be going on in her residence. I have had one
of her personal home clients to knock on my door in the middle of the night saying that her
husband was behind them with a knife. I talked through the door but I did not open my door. If
something is going on she calls them her children her family its like a gang thing. And I’m very
uncomfortable living in that environment. Very uncomfortable and very afraid. And it’s nerve
wracking. I have gone to her residence on several occasions in the middle of the night to ask her
to turn down the music. They love to party and I’m just afraid. I can’t even sit on my porch
unless somebody’s calling my name you know harassment. And I don’t think that’s right
because I was there, I’ve been there over 30 years before she came to this area and I’m just upset
with it. I’m tired of it. And I just wanted to make it legal on paper. I’ve called the police on
several occasions and I just don’t know what else to say. But the people that are living there in
the personal care home are unsafe. If you’ve got to run to my house in the middle of the night to
wake me up out of my bed to protect you which at that particular time she was not at home. Her
husband was there. I didn’t open my door but I did talk to the lady. So I have a petition that
everybody in my circle is against this. Everybody. Yes, ma’am, I got that signed. It says it has
made our circle in our neighborhood so uncomfortable. People are not even speaking to each
other and that’s not right. And I can’t stop her but somebody can. That’s all I have to say.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Turner: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Actually, Mr. Patty, is the petitioner here?
The Clerk: Ms. Belinda Winfrey? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think it would be appropriate that we hear from the petitioner and
give equal time.
Ms. Winfrey: How you doing. I’m Belinda Winfrey, 1833 Empress Court. Lord is my
witness it’s a personal reason, a personal problem, very personal. It’s the only think I can say.
And my personal care home don’t nobody go through her door, the guy he’s 78 years old. I just
have one person, one guy. He’s from the VA Hospital. He’s the only one that I have in my
home and I’m licensed for three. I’ve been in business for 6 ½ years. I didn’t know I had to be
zoned. When the ORS come to my home every year to inspect my home, the ombudsman, agent
10
that I’m under carrying together I didn’t know nothing about the zoning. Other than that as Lord
is my witness it’s very personal. I mean I can’t say nothing else. If I do I’ll be lying.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Winfrey: And I run a clean personal care home.
Mr. Mayor: Okay thank you, ma’am. And can we hear from Mr. Patty right quick and
then?
Mr. Patty: You know, I was aware that there might be objectors in the area but when this
came to the Planning Commission they were not, they did not appear. We did not see the
petition opposed to it. The applicant stated at the meeting, I had heard through allegation that
they’ve been operating illegally and I asked the applicant at the meeting and she stated that she
has here that she has one or two patients in the home which is not in violation of the single-
family zoning classification that they have. The house is 1200 square feet, four bedrooms, two
baths it’s on a cul-de-sac, fenced backyard. I don’t know what to tell you other than vote your
convictions. I mean you’ve got discretion in these matters. We approve a lot them and deny
very few of them. So I think you’ve got discretion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Patty, do you have any of the Sheriff’s reports if there were any
incidents at this address?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. We asked the applicant to fill out a form on the front end and one of
the questions is, is crime prevalent in the area. Has there been any crimes in this location? And I
frankly haven’t looked at that form. I didn’t realize this was going to come up but I doubt that
there’s anything going to be anything on it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Brigham: No, sir. I’m just trying to decide.
Mr. Mayor: And, sir, I was given, you are noted as being in opposition but I gave equal
time to either side. Five minutes to either side.
Mr. Speaker: Inaudible.
Mr. Mason: Well, at least let us hear him.
Mr. Speaker: Inaudible.
The Clerk: He needs to come to the podium.
Mr. Holland: If he could just stand up so we can hear what he’s saying.
11
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Inaudible
Mr. Grantham: We can’t hear what he’s saying.
Mr. Mayor: Sir, could you come to the microphone?
Mr. Arnold: My name is William C. Arnold and I consider this a home in a single family
residence is when I bought my home 30 years ago, actually 29 years ago and almost built. And I
have personally called police to the people because of the loud music. And so I just wanted to
state that ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Arnold: --- and they are not in enough room if they have visitors to park properly in
that neighborhood because they can only park at the most two cars in front of that house and
three cars in the driveway.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Yes sir and this will be that last comment.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Eddy Kemp and I’m the husband of Ms. Belinda. It’s a
personal problem with that lady right there. I’m a truck driver. I also go out of town and when I
come back and I was told that she’d be running to people’s doors and talking against Ms.
Winfrey about the personal care home. But out of all time, the years she’s done been in there she
never had a complaint. I mean that ought to be letting you know something right there. It is a
personal problem. She is miserable. The reason why ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, sir, we really can’t start taking out personal problems here in the
Commission chambers. I apologize but that’s ---
Mr. Kemp: Yes, sir, but that’s what it is so.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but you can leave it at that. I just, I can’t have personal attacks going
on in here.
Mr. Kemp: And I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, does anybody want to make a motion either
way on this? Mr. Bowles, you had requested to see if there were any police reports filed.
Mr. Jackson: We send it back to Planning?
Mr. Mayor: Can we refer it back to, would somebody like to make a motion?
12
Mr. Jackson: I make a motion we send it back to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and with the stipulation to check for ---
Mr. Jackson: Sheriff’s reports.
Mr. Mayor: --- if there are any, okay. Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Nothing over here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion oh,
Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The only thing I was going to, you know, add to
that apparently there is some discrepancy in that particular area because all of these people
signed. And sometimes people don’t sign their names unless there is some concern about what’s
going on in their community. So I’m hoping that perhaps maybe after this goes back to Planning
maybe the two groups can get together and sit down and discuss the problem and find out exactly
what they need to do in order to solve this. Because apparently the other persons that live in that
cul-de-sac you know they’re upset too. Of course this is in Mr. Jackson’s district and we would
hope that they would do this in an intelligent manner so it can be discussed and be taken care of.
That’s my concern in reference to this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Holland: Going back to Committee.
The Clerk: Refer it back to Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
11. Motion to approve BlueCross BlueShield of Georgia as Augusta-Richmond County’s
Health Insurance Provider for 2010. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
July 13, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson, I believe this was your pull.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to pull this because I have some
concerns and questions. I had some phone calls about two weeks ago a couple clients of the
BlueCross Blue Shield that should’ve been receiving service and wasn’t but they were being
13
charged. And I sent an email to the Human Resources Director to get some input on what’s
going on with this. And if I can I would like to hear from him on this matter and see what the
deal is with this and why these employees have been charged over two years for this and haven’t
been compensated for the service.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ron?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t believe that’s germane to a contract with the health
insurance.
Mr. Johnson: Well, it is in relation to BlueCross BlueShield. And they were the service
provider so somebody I think they may be more knowledgeable about where the dollars was
going or if they were being paid into BlueCross and BlueShield so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner, I think what you’re dealing with now would be more of an
internal issue that we would have. If you want to talk specifically about employees we’re unable
to do that because of the restrictions that are placed there. I think if it’s the employees I’m aware
of we’ve dealt with, attempted to deal that as we move forward. But I don’t think it reflects
anything on the service of BlueCross BlueShield at the time. I think it’s an internal matter and
I’d be more than happy to brief you on that at an appropriate time.
Mr. Johnson: I understand that, Fred, but I do have concerns because BlueCross and
BlueShield is involved in this particular situation. They was the providers for the service so even
it’s not Mr. Powell that answers the questions we need to make sure that this doesn’t happen
again or be aware of the information that needs to be provided. Because these are two different
cases and I understand that it’s more likely internal but if it’s some paper work that needs to be
submitted and somebody needs to be responsible for that if we’re going to continue to have a
contract with the company and provide service. So I do understand your point. I do believe it’s
internal ---
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Johnson: --- but we do need to make sure that this is addressed before we re-enter
into another contract and this happens again. That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, and obviously when you’ve got the number of employees that we
do have there are always going to be some issues there ---
Mr. Johnson: Right. Right.
Mr. Russell: --- but the issues that you’re talking about that I’m aware of are internal
issues that have no impact on the service provider. But there are issues that we need to deal with
internally within our departments.
14
Mr. Johnson: We can do that, that’s fine with me but I will say that we at least need to
put this on, put the question out there for the next Committee meeting and I guess I’ll get with
you ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, I’d be happy to do that.
Mr. Johnson: --- on that. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor I understand where Commissioner Johnson is coming from
but and his concern about some individuals involved. I think what we’re dealing here with is a
group policy that is involving all of our employees that participate in our insurance. And for us
to take up individual grievances we have a department and BlueCross BlueShield has that same
type of service. And I think he deserves an answer for those people that may have bee denied
some type of coverage. But we’re looking at approving a plan for some 2500+ people and not to
deal with individual situations. But he does deserve that answer and I would think that we need
to move on and approve this plan since we do have it for one year with no increase in our costs
and move forward with it so that we can, we can address a health care issues at a later date. I
think that’s going to become a more important issue for the future than it is on a couple of
individuals today.
Mr. Mayor: So are you putting that in the form of a motion to approve?
Mr. Grantham: I make a motion that we approve on the basis that Mr. Johnson
receive the information that he is requesting from HR and from our Administrator.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, agenda item I believe it’s 21 that was pulled?
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
21. Motion to authorize Option A of the Administrator’s recommendation for payment of
the current bills through the contract period ending December 31, 2009 relative to the
existing Program Management Services Contract with CH2M Hill. (Approved by July 13,
2009 Engineering Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe this was, Mr. Mason was --
15
Mr. Mason: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: --- 21 your pull?
Mr. Mason: Yes. Just a couple of things here. Just want to make some notes. The
Administrator, Mr. Administrator the Option A that we’re referencing here we said would take
st
them through December 31 of 2009. Correct?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Now if I’m not mistaken while we were in Committee I thought I heard
someone reference that in addition to that there was supposed to begin this process of seeking
additional bids or something like that. I thought Commissioner Johnson made it something in
addition to that ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason --- which I don’t see right here.
Mr. Russell: Obviously the work is, by doing that what you’ve done is put us in a
position to seek additional bids, to seek bids for the remainder of the service. I don’t think it was
part of the motion but the end result would be that we would have to do that. We’ve already
started that process, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, well, then here’s what I would like to do. I’d like to hear from the,
well, I would like to hear the Clerk of Commission actually read in Option A that we’re voting
on to put on the record.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Attorney, would you like to do the honors to read in Option A?
Ms. Johnson: Certainly. Option A. The Commission would approve the third and final
year option of the contract approved by the Commission in February 2005. The estimated 2009
budget for this option is $1 million dollars. This option would allow all programs currently
under contract to be completed with the exception of the Messerly Project. The remainder of the
services work performed beyond December 31, 2009 on the Messerly Project would be
performed under a separate agreement by CH2M Hill or by others as deemed appropriate by the
Commission. The percentages offered by CH2M Hill for minority participation could be
achieved. This option would also include the re-determination effort required during the second
year of the Fort Gordon Operations Services Contract. Attachment B Option A for Amendment
7 regarding the estimated compensation amounts is attached for reference. The revised Option A
st
would begin July 2009 and conclude in December on December 31 2009.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, would you like to formerly make a motion to
approve Option A?
Mr. Russell: If I can ---
16
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: --- I think the Mayor Pro Tem has a good point that language or CH2M Hill
or another authorized bidder or another authorized individual is approved by the Commission is a
little bit more definite in the bidding issue than what I had initially mentioned. So just to clarify
that it basically directs us to go ahead and bid that out.
Mr. Mason:So having said that I
Okay, that’s the point I was trying to make. Okay.
move for approval.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no, Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, while I’m supportive of Option A to carry this contract
through the end of the year I am still concerned, overly concerned about the completion of the
Messerly Plant. And how are we going to go about doing that. And while I’ll vote to carry the
contract to the end of the year and rebid it I do think we need to address that issue and address it
very, very quickly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, ---
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: --- point well taken. Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I too am concerned Mr. Brigham, as Mr.
Brigham is rather in reference to the project getting complete in a timely fashion and that’s
economically feasible for this government. Or at the same time though I think we made it very,
very clear that this can be done. I don’t think anyone stood up to say that it couldn’t be done.
And if you really want to know the truth about it, in my opinion the management is not
necessarily being done by CH2M Hill anyways. You do have some subcontractors down there
that seem to be handling most of that from when I went through there and got my briefing. But
the bottom line is I am concerned about that as well. I certainly do hope we address it as quickly
as we possibly can and come to some sort of conclusion for the city.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now on to the regular agenda, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
17
PLANNING
26. Z-09-36 – a REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Shirley Lee, on behalf of James W. Pee
requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1
(h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property containing 3.14 acres and is known as 4089 Peach Orchard Road. (Tax Map 211-
0-003-00-0) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, I don’t know if you went to the “Y” this morning or not but we’re
going to continue to give you plenty of exercise today I believe.
Mr. Patty: All I can tell you is we’re going to have more and more of these as the state is
attempting to downsize and shut down these facilities in the area of regional hospitals,
Gracewood. The Planning Commission has looked at the ways other places regulate these uses
and there’s just no good way to do it. Now having said that, this application is for a large lot out
on Peach Orchard Road. We had numerous objectors to this one and the applicant was not
present at the meeting. We’ve attempted to contact the applicant and the owner and have not
been able to do so. Don’t know what the deal is but we recommend you deny it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have the applicant and owner here? Okay, we’ll hear from you
now.
Mr. Grantham: Why wasn’t he at the Planning and Zoning? Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, sir, if you could state your name and address for the record and I’ll
give 5 minutes however y’all want to divide it up.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I’m James W. Pee, 4089 Peach Orchard Road. I’m the applicant.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Pee: And what it is is that this home is strictly for non-ambulatory veterans. These
are veterans that will be sent, will be handpicked and sent to us for their care. They’ll be under
monitoring 24-hours a day. And what it is I don’t know exactly what the concerns of the
community is at this time. But I would like to hear if it’s from anybody we would like to know
why the petition is disapproved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and I’ll tell you I can give equal time to a representative from the
community. I just would say that it would seem to me that it might not have gotten to this point
if you’ll had been at the original ---
Mr. Pee: Yeah, it was pressing reasons why we couldn’t be here. For one thing wasn’t
even in town at the particular time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
18
Mr. Pee: But the veterans will pose no threat to anyone in the community and as I said
non-ambulatory. And the VA will pick them and send them to us as they are needed. If anybody
ever dealt with the Veterans Hospital they know the same as Gracewood and a lot of the other
institutions. They’re crowded and they need a place to put these people. And they have served
their country well and you know and I think they deserve to have this chance.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: In reference to your facility will there be someone to supervise?
Mr. Pee: Definitely so, 24 hours a day.
Mr. Holland: Okay.
Mr. Pee: That’s one of the VA requirements.
Mr. Holland: Okay. And how many are we talking about that’s going to be ---
Mr. Pee: Three, four ---
Mr. Holland: Three to four?
Mr. Pee: Three to four veterans.
Mr. Holland: Twenty-four hours a day?
Mr. Pee: Yes.
Mr. Holland: And they don’t cause any problems or anything. And when you say
ambulatory you’re talking about ---
Mr. Pee: Non-ambulatory.
Mr. Holland: Non-ambulatory.
Mr. Pee: They’re not able to get around on their own.
Mr. Holland: Okay.
Mr. Pee: (inaudible) wheelchairs and they can’t have ---
Mr. Mason: Disabled Vets.
19
Mr. Holland: Okay. Will they get assistance to leave and go to the grocery store and
things of this nature?
Mr. Pee: Yes, they do.
Mr. Holland: Okay. I’ve seen one of those homes and I’ve seen it’s been well, they’ve
been well serviced and they’ve been supervised very well. And I’ve observed and seen one of
those so that’s one of the things I wanted to know.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Is your home, the facilities in your home handicapped approved?
Mr. Pee: Yes, they are.
Mr. Brigham: Such as the bathroom. Is there a wheelchair ramp?
Mr. Pee: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: Can you explain on that?
Mr. Pee: They will meet VA specifications.
Mr. Brigham: Well, I’m not familiar with VA specifications. Help me a little bit.
Mr. Pee: They would be, that means ramps, certain amount of space in each room.
Mr. Brigham: Is there more than one handicapped bathroom?
Mr. Pee: Yes, there will be.
Mr. Brigham: There will be.
Mr. Pee: Yes, we must be approved and zoned and zoned for it first.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Pee: But VA will come out and inspect.
Mr. Brigham: So there’s going to be more than one handicapped bathroom and there will
be ramps and everything for wheelchairs.
Mr. Speaker: (inaudible)
Mr. Brigham: I’m sorry.
20
Mr. Speaker: At home at present he has four bathrooms.
Mr. Brigham: Is all four of them going to be handicapped?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Handicapped accessible.
Mr. Brigham: I’m just trying to find out. You know trying to get some information.
Mr. Pee: We understand.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Pee: That’s why we’re mainly here to address, you know any concerns they may
have.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any objectors here? If we could see a show of hands.
Okay, please keep your hands up so we can count.
Mr. Russell: Eleven.
The Clerk: Eleven objectors.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, prior to and we will hear from a representative of the objectors. But it
sounds to me as though you know you say you want to answer their questions I think you guys
kind of need to get together and try to work this out prior to us which you had an opportunity to
do that before. Maybe if you could get together with the neighborhood and sort of talk it out we
could come to a resolution. But that’s the way I’m sort of feeling about this is refer it to the next
meeting to give y’all that opportunity. That being said somebody up here would have to make a
motion to that effect. But first I’d like to hear from a representative from the objectors to give
equal time. And if you could state your name and address for the record, please, sir and keep it
to 5 minutes as well.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Lee O’Connor. I live at 111 Barefield and I just to say thank
you for giving me the opportunity to once again give you our opposition and the reason being.
First on the onset let me, on the onset set let me say that when I first learned about this request,
special zoning request I went to see Mr. and Mrs. Pee and when I drove in their property is right
beside of ours. And we live in a community that’s about 40/45 acres, 39 houses. And I have the
honor of being president of this homeowners association. So when I was called at home and was
told that there was a zoning sign up I went to talk to Mr. and Mrs. Pee and when I turned into the
driveway I didn’t see anything but posted signs. It’s like entering a hunting club. So and says
that trespassers will be prosecuted. So I felt I want to be a good neighbor so I better go back and
21
see if I can’t get their phone number. So I went back and I found their phone number in the
phone book and I went to call it and it said that the phone had been disconnected. So I didn’t
really have any other alternative but to go around and collect a petition. And I have a total of 72
names on this petition opposing this special zoning request. And my argument at the Planning
and Zoning meeting was the fact that the safety of these potential residents. And that’s our main
concern is their safety. And we just feel like the location is not conducive for the residents and
the association, the Barefield Association would be more than willing to get with Mr. and Mrs.
Pee and help them find a better place that’s more conducive for these residents. And we just
don’t feel like that it is a good place due to the safety. And I’d like to say this also. If anyone of
y’all would like to speak. And also we have about a half, we do have a dozen fishing ponds in
our community and if you recall about three weeks ago those very souls that walked away from
Harris residence of course he says they’re not able to walk away but we’re really concerned
about the safety of these folks. And like I say we would assist them in any way to find a more
suitable place for these residents.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is in my district, District 8 and I know the
house. I remember when it was built. Beautiful home it sits back. Lots of property. But it’s
right on that hill coming up Deans Bridge Road and goes down ---
Mr. Holland: Peach Orchard Road.
Mr. Smith: Peach Orchard, yeah I’m sorry. And that is a very dangerous place. They’ve
got a lot accidents coming out of McElmurray and Barefield Drive. But the main thing that
concerns me is all those ponds over there. And we know that someway somehow one of them is
going to get in it.
Mr. Speaker: To be honest with you, sir, our property is really not a part of Barefield.
Mr. Smith: I know it’s not but it adjoins it.
Mr. Speaker: I understand but we’re talking about non-ambulatory people. People that
can only get around in a wheelchair. We do have a fence around the property and those signs
that the gentleman is talking about those signs were there when the home was bought initially.
Okay? And you know we just left the signs up. Now the property is very well maintained we
you know they will be strictly supervised. Okay? And if they’re non-ambulatory they will need
assistance in even going in and out of the property. You know there will be someone there 24
hours a day and as far as him talking about somebody wandering away I don’t really see that
because like I said we do have a fence around the property. And if they’re in a wheelchair the
only way that they can get out of the property is to go down that long driveway. But you know
as said it will be supervised 24 hours a day.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor I’d like to make a motion that to go along with the Planning
Commission that this petition be denied.
22
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. I think we’ve heard from both sides. Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mason: Yes, can I ask Mr. Patty what was his justification or reasoning for the
denial of the petition from your standpoint.
Mr. Patty: Well, like I said you know we really didn’t have any information on this. We
were not able to contact the petitioners. They didn’t come to the meeting. We made a couple
attempts and like the gentleman said the phone number we had would not work so we really
didn’t know anything about it. And the neighbors are opposed to it and we had no information.
Mr. Mason: Okay, all right, Mr. Mayor, the fact that we, Ms. Beard.
Mr. Mayor: Well, no, Commissioner Holland and then Ms. Beard.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This really concerns me especially when we’re
talking about our veterans. You know I just left a funeral of a veteran. You know and these men
have served our country and come back in. There’s two groups of people in the United States
that are being mistreated. And that’s our veterans and our senior citizens. And I think it’s high
time that we stop mistreating our veterans and our senior citizens. Now I want to know what
safety factors and what safety factors that they are concerned about in reference to these men
who will be in wheelchairs that concerns you so very, very much in reference to that. Because
I’ve been in several homes in very nice neighborhoods and they have these ambulatory care for
veterans. So I would just like to know what safety factors are you speaking of in reference to
that house where these veterans will be living.
Mr. O’Connor: Mr. Holland, I appreciate your concern, believe you me. I too am a
veteran and I have prosthesis hip and I know that veterans, they deserve every respect that we
can give them. And my main concern is by being a veteran I know that as an old soldier we have
a lot of determination too. We just don’t sit by and just get old. We like to get out and have a
good time. And not only that someone alluded to the, it was Mr. Smith talking about the traffic.
Now I don’t know if all of you know about the location we’re in but if you go a ways down
Highway 25 going toward Hephzibah right before you get to Highway 88 you’ve got about a
mile long hill. And it’s four lanes. And after you crest that hill about a hundred yards is where
we pull out to get into the highway. Now I’m always trusting my wife and those in the
neighborhood, make sure you look both ways before you pull out and look again toward the
traffic coming to you before you pull out. And it really gets congested at times. And to really
make it even more of a danger is right across, not directly across where we pull but kind of catty
corner there probably about 20 yards is where McElmurray is. And this fall Pine Hill Middle
School is going to open. And Lord only knows himself what the dangers will be there. And
you’re talking about not only these veterans in the wheelchairs but what complicates it even
more than that they have to be buses back and forth everywhere they go. And they’re constantly
going to be pulling in and out of that dangerous situation. And that’s why we said we believe it’s
23
not conducive to that location and that we would be more than glad as the Barefield
Homeowners Association to help them find a place that would be more conducive. Thank you.
Mr. Pee: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Pee: They’re all wheelchair bound. If we have to move them from the home to the
VA to make an appointment or something or even to go somewhere it’s not any more difficult
than it is ---
Mr. Mason: Talk in the mike.
Mr. Pee: Oh, I’m sorry. It’s not any more difficult than it is now for us moving out of
the driveway as a family going somewhere. You know these veterans will be given the utmost
care and actually we the same as the Veterans Administration are concerned with their safety.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I want to I guess piggyback on what Mr. Holland said. We have
so many people coming before us in reference to personal care homes in a very negative manner.
This is something we’re going to need even more of in the future and I understand we cannot
have these just anywhere in the community. But I do think in this city we need to do something
to promote enhancing these types situations and making it more palatable or something that, or
make it something this city embraces. Maybe some type advertisement or what have you.
Because no it’s not for every particular section but surely we want decent places for all of our
citizens here in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Nobody is certainly talking against the veterans or
the senior citizens because I am one. But it’s the location that concerns us. This is US 25 and
like the gentleman said you come up that hill and you pop over there and you’re right on top of
that driveway. And I’ve been living out there for 35-years and it’s not something that I’m not
familiar with. I’m certainly not against having one but the location is what I don’t think is at all
proper.
Mr. Speaker: We drive in and out of that driveway ourselves and we you know we
haven’t had any accidents and we are very aware of the dangers. But I mean I live in Pinnacle
Place okay? We don’t have a red light and that’s a very dangerous subdivision you know to go
in and out of. You know so as far as danger is concerned we are you know, he’s a Vietnam Vet
so am I. And we were just trying to look at doing something for the veterans.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mayo Pro Tem.
24
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve heard compassionate pleas on both sides and
certainly could make an argument or a case either way. But short of these two sides getting
together, which does not appear like really happen, and we’re sitting here hashing it out today. I
would offer a substitute motion for the two sides to come together along with I guess potentially
the Planning and Zoning. Because short of that with due process having taken place someone’s
not going to like the result of the vote that may happen here today. So out of fairness to try to
give an opportunity for both sides to have some discussion and then perhaps come back. That’s
the only other thing that I can think of at this point that would be in the best interest or the fair
interest and then we’ve got to come back and make a decision if we can get the necessary votes
for the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: And you would make that substitute motion that this be referred to the next
full Commission meeting giving the community and the petitioners an opportunity to get
together prior to.
Mr. Mason: Absolutely.
Mr. Holland: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner
Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In all due respect I see where our Mayor Pro
Tem is going and that’s an admirable way to do but I think we have witnessed at best some 70+
neighbors living in that area that are objecting to this facility. They’re not objecting to the
people there, they’re not objecting to the individuals that will be living there they’re objecting to
the facility. And I think we owe that to our taxpaying citizens of that neighborhood as well as to
that area that we honor their request as we have done in so many cases.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you and we can end this. Mr. Patty, let me ask you one question.
Please, sir. Would you consider it to be a very dangerous situation to put the veterans in
transporting them in and out of that driveway?
Mr. Patty: There’s definitely a sight distance problem at that location.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. That’s what I needed.
Mr. Patty: For a professional answer we’d have to send a traffic engineer out there. He’d
have to measure the sight distance. That would be based on the speed of operation, which I
guessing is in excess of 60 mph. And it probably would not meet the, you know, standards but
I’m only telling you that in speculation so.
25
Mr. Johnson: And the only reason why I’m asking is because I know Pepperidge has a
light and it’s still dangerous and it’s coming down the hill. So I understand it. So I appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
Mr. Holland: And if a school is going to be opening in that area it should be a speed zone
in that particular area to slow the cars down.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson: And I do appreciate the conversation but if the traffic requirements are not
a part of what our codes says in evaluating factors for a Special Exception we don’t need to have
any further discussion. So I would appreciate it if Mr. Patty address that issue. What are the
requirements for the Special Exception for this use of the property? That’s what we need to
know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: Well, I don’t have the ordinance in front of it but it clearly gives us the right
to look at all these health safety issues. And I think this would be one of them. It might not be a
compelling reason given that they’ve now said that this only involves three individuals and you
know there’d be limited movement in and out of the driveway. But um, if in fact that was a, you
know, a really, really serious sight distance problem I think that’d be something you could
consider.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem just for the, would you like to include in
your substitute motion that that traffic data would be brought back to the next meeting.
Mr. Mason: Yes, I would.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay if there’s no further discussion we have a substitute motion on
the floor. Madam Clerk, just for the sake of clarity on all of these issues if you could read back
the substitute motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was that the petitioner, the objectors and the
Planning Commission meet to try to work out a solution and bring back their recommendation to
the next Committee meeting along with the appropriate traffic data information.
Mr. Mayor: The next full Commission meeting.
The Clerk: Yes.
26
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The question’s been called for. Commissioners will now vote by the
substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a primary motion on the floor as well.
The Clerk: And that was to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to
deny the petition.
Mr. Mayor: And Commissioners will now vote on the primary motion by the usual sign
of voting.
Mr. Holland votes No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. On to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
28. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s purchase of six (6) paratransit vehicles
from National Bus Sales and Leasing, Incorporated for $554,412.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles, I believe you had an issue with this.
Mr. Bowles: Yes, sir, I have a question for Fred. Fred, is this something that we are in
need of and if so what are we going to do with the old buses that we do have?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, this is a replacement that we’re doing in taking advantage of the
opportunity here. The old buses will be phased out or surplused as we go forward. I’m not,
that’s the plan at the moment. I don’t know if we need to increase the fleet. Let me check for
just a second there. They’ll be phased out.
Mr. Bowles: I just want to make sure we’re not going to start collecting antique buses.
Mr. Russell: No, sir, we’re not.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bowles: Motion to approve.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
27
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. I see ---
Mr. Grantham: It’s all right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
29. Consider a request from ACCG regarding the purchase of an ad for the 2009 county
Family Album of Georgia County Government Magazine.
Mr. Bowles: Motion to deny.
Mr. Grantham: To deny.
The Clerk: This is an annual edition that ACCG publishes every year and the counties
are asked to purchase an ad for the publication of this family album. We have in the past
supported this initiative however we didn’t last year. The deadline is Friday and that’s why it’s
on today’s agenda. If you chose to want to do it there is sufficient funds in an account to cover
the cost. But we need to decide what type ad, the size. It’s on the page but we have supported
this endeavor in the past. So it’s here now for your consideration if we’re wanting to do it this
year.
Mr. Mayor: I saw Commissioner Holland’s hand first.
Mr. Holland: I wanted to make sure we had the money in the funds to ---
The Clerk: Well, it was in there Friday. Now Wednesday when I looked now we ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: What size ad are you recommending? Is this coming out of the Clerk’s
budget?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You know it’s out of the Mayor’s budget.
The Clerk: I think it would be appropriate. We went with a half-page black and white at
$539.50.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
28
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Holland: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thirty-nine-fifty. Is that $39.50 or $539.50?
The Clerk: $539.50, half-page black and white.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Holland: Might as well we can’t go to Nashville.
Mr. Grantham: Leave Joe Bowles’ name off the ad.
Mr. Bowles: Leave my picture out too.
The Clerk: Okay, so we vacate District 3? What, we show District 3 vacant? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The dark zone.
Mr. Bowles votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
30. Consider the appeals request of Mr. Harold M. Davis regarding the Historic
Preservation Commission’s denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) affecting property located at 2678 Henry Street.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’d like to hear from Mr. Patty first and then we’ll hear from the
petitioner and representatives of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Mr. Patty: This involves property in the Summerville neighborhood. It’s actually on a
corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Henry Street. And this
property fell into a pretty said state of repair. In the early, after about 2002/2004 a guy bought it
and he took out a permit and got a certificate to put a roof on the property which he never did
and Mr. Davis apparently purchased this property sometime in ’05 or ’06 and he proceeded to
get some permits to do work on the inside of the house and did some, actually did a lot more than
that. With one exception he did work that I think everybody agrees was done very well to the
outside of the house. But because he didn’t have a certificate from the HPC there wasn’t any
continued review of that work. And we’re really down to one issue. This, the work was finally
29
stopped by the inspection department in January of this year and since then he’s been to the HPC
three times and it got narrowed down to one issue which is the porch, the front porch on this
house. He had framed a porch, the porch, the original porch is gone, there was probably a
second or third porch on the front of it that was repaired, replaced, I mean removed at some
point. And the porch that’s framed on it now is probably significantly larger than the original
porch and that’s the contention. The size of the porch and the style of the porch are a contention.
And the HPC submits that’s it’s not consistent with the Summerville guidelines and the applicant
submits that it is and the only thing I can tell you is that we’ve been through several attempts to
mediate this. Actually got a very highly respected local architect to provide his thoughts on it
and that was not acceptable to the applicant so that’s kind of where we are right now. And
hopefully, we had hoped there’d be some middle ground but we have not been able to find it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Patty. If we can hear from the applicant. And if you
could state your name and address for the record, please, sir and keep it to 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Mike Davis, my wife Gigi Davis. We live at 2678 Henry
Street. We’ve been Augusta residents for all of our lives except for the time I spent in military
service. My wife owns a business in Augusta and we bought this house in Summerville with the
hope of restoring it or a complete restoration of this home. I’ve spent over $300,000 restoring
this home and trying to make it as very nice and beautiful as it could be. I’ve had numerous
residents stop by many, many times and tell me how much they appreciated the work that we
were doing, the work that had been done and the landscaping. Everything that we’ve done there
they’ve complimented us on the appreciation for that. I even have a letter submitted here in your
packets that I handed you supporting our actions there. However there were some who disagree
or did not support our actions. This is an example of the end of the home. I don’t know if you
have the before picture or not but this house was at the point of falling down. The pillar on the
right had completely dilapidated. The right hand corner of the house you can’t see here was
caving in. The roof when I first bought the house you could step in the back porch and you
would fall into the basement because there was no floor there. And you could look up and you
see the blue sky. The house was at the point of being condemned. Like I say I’ve spent
$300,000 in two years working on this house and no one said a word to me until I started the
front porch, which was the last phase to finish the house. I did a lot a research, my wife and I,
looking for a front porch that would be comparable to the house. We have, if you know, I’m
sure all of you are familiar with the Holton Elementary School. That school is exactly what our
house will look like when we finish with it. And I was told by the Historical Commission, that it
was an Italian Renaissance House. Well, I pulled the Summerville guidelines and I’ve proven
time and time again that it’s not an Italian Renaissance house it’s a Mediterranean Eclectic house
of several styles. This is very well documented in the Summerville guidelines. I’ve presented
this and I’ve been shot down each time. The porch that was there the Summerville Commission
asked me to put back the porch that was there when I bought the house. It had been added about
30-years ago and was totally out of style. It was an Asian craftsman style and if you look at all
of the, which I submitted here in my pamphlet, if you would look at all of the styles in Italian
Renaissance there were, I met four out of the eight. If you look at the Spanish Baroque I met
eight out of eight characteristics for the style of this home. So I’m not out of line with my style
and I would like for you to consider allowing me to finish the porch. If I could only finish it, it
would be a beautiful thing. Thank you very much for your time.
30
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Now if we could give equal time to hear from a
representative of the Historic Preservation Commission. If you could state your name and
address for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Mark Lorah, 2415 Wilkshire Drive. I chair the Historic
Preservation Commission here in town. First of all we would like to thank Mr. Davis for the
taking on the challenge of restoring this beautiful old home. And with that sentiment we agree
with the neighborhood supporters that he mentions. We also would like to point out that the
Letter of Support that he provided to you specifically excludes the discussion of the front porch,
which is the final remaining issue that we have not been able to resolve. The Historic
Preservation Commission has tried and really bent over backwards to resolve these issues up to
and including retroactively approving a lot of the changes that he made to the structure without
the COA having been issued. Okay? We also appreciate the fact that we can get into a lot of
discussions of this architectural style versus bad architectural style, which will probably bore a
lot of people here. Frankly that’s one of the reasons that we’re in our jobs and we do what we
do. And we’d like to thank the Commission for appointing the historic and design experts to the
Historic Preservation Commission. And thank you giving us that expertise. According to that
professional expertise that we have on the Commission, this front porch addition does not meet
the requirements of the historic guidelines for Summerville. The guidelines state that the
additions must be in keeping with the character of the house and we do not feel that this addition
is in characteristics of the house. Now you do have in your packet if I can also put up here the
design of what he would like to, that is the design he would like to have for the front porch. It
was not complete at the time that he received the stop work order and it had been framed in but
not yet entirely complete. Okay? Even though we have the historic and design professional
expertise that you provided to us on the board we also had this independently evaluated. Okay?
And it was evaluated by a committee of Historic Augusta, which is an independent organization,
which I’m sure you’re all familiar with. And their professional expert opinion was that the
owner return to the original design of the front porch as seen in the attached photograph in
keeping with the historic integrity and character of the building. They also recommend that the
stucco be removed from the sills and lintels. Okay? That issue the sills and lintels has already
been resolved with us. That’s one of the largest photographs we have of what Historic Augusta
is recommending that he go back to which is more of a front porch overhang. Okay? Because
we always try to work out these issues so that we have a win, win situation for the homeowner,
the historic character of the neighborhood and the neighborhood and the neighbors we try to pose
some compromises. Okay? Mr. Davis has said that this porch was too small for him and he
needed a larger porch so we would work with him on that. A couple of the compromises that
were suggested ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you’ve got about 20 seconds left.
Mr. Lorah: All right. These two were suggested by another independent architect okay?
So it is our opinion, but these were not acceptable to the homeowner. So it is our opinion that we
would be willing to accept either these compromises but they have not been acceptable to the
homeowner.
31
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any questions? Would anybody care to make a motion?
Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles:
Mr. Mayor considering that they’ve been spending a lot of time on this and
they agreed to go through a mediation and that you know the HPC is there for the protection of
the neighborhood. And while they don’t try to impede wonderful work, which Mr. Davis has
done on 99.9 of the house, there is this one sticking point. And when you go around to other
historic neighborhoods and see what the guidelines are in place and what happens in those
neighborhoods we have to spend a lot of money renovating them. I think sometimes people look
at this and say this is a small and picky item for them to be concentrating on. But it’s part of an
overall effort to keep the community originally esthetic. And I think this is one of those
situations where at least I’m going to vote to support HPC even though I know what Mr. Davis
has done is beautiful but it’s not exactly in line with what the function of the HPC Board is there
. So I’d like to make a motion to deny it.
to protect
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mark, can you tell us what the results of the mediation were? Can you tell
us what the mediator recommended?
Mr. Lorah: Yes, the results of the mediation first of all were that we did confirm that all
of the work that he had done up to this point exclusive of the front porch which was the one
remaining unfinished item we would accept that. Okay? We also stated that we would be
willing to abide by the decision of an independent architect, an architect independent of the
historic board. And Mr. Davis and I both agreed to obtain at no cost to Mr. Davis and at no cost
to the city and independent architect. And he is the one and then I also said that I would be
willing to abide by his decision even if he said what Mr. Davis had presented would be
appropriate for this house. This independent architect said but no it was not and he provided
these two sketches that you see up there now as evidence that of what would be appropriate for
this house.
Mr. Brigham: Can you tell us who that independent architect was?
Mr. Lorah: He had asked that he be identified as a member of Historic Augusta. He does
work with the architectural firm of Cheatham Fletcher Scott here in town.
Mr. Brigham: This is one of the two proposals and the other one is what? He left these
as choices? He didn’t have a recommendation?
32
Mr. Lorah: That’s correct. Basically the proposed front porch was considered to be way
to ornate and way to overpowering for the simplicity of this house. Okay? So even without
talking about styles of this and styles of that when you look at this it was considered that is was
just way to ornate, way to overpowering, way to fancy compared to the rest of the house. Okay?
And so without requiring a complete and total demolition of what was already there and without
requiring going back to what was the original proposed as suggested by Historic Augusta
initially this architect proposed one or two of these two options which are basically maintaining
the size of the front porch that was desired but simplifying it. Okay? Either putting a hip roof on
there to match the hip roof of the roof or even a curved parapet to match the curves of the front
windows. A much simpler design but yet not overpowering the other historic characteristics of
the house.
Mr. Mayor: Okay any further discussion? Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, to clarify, what the motion needs to be, your motion should be
to approve the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny the Certificate
of Appropriateness in this matter.
Mr. Bowles: Should we include unless it’s one of these two alternatives presented?
Ms. Johnson: That wasn’t the recommendation of the Commission.
Mr. Grantham: But?
Ms. Johnson: It should be stated in the open record that we selected one of those if that’s
going to be the motion that you vote on. The two were presented as options. There hasn’t been a
determination one or the other. We need that to make that part of the motion.
Mr. Lorah: Mr. Davis has already stated that either of these two options is not acceptable
to him.
Ms. Johnson: So the motion would be the first. That’s to approve the recommendation
of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Bowles that would, that would you like to amend your motion to
state exactly that?
Mr. Bowles: I’d like to see Mr. Davis be allowed to finish his front porch ---
Mr. Grantham: Yeah.
Mr. Bowles: --- but um, ---
Ms. Johnson: If I could ---
33
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson: --- the concern is twofold. First of all before any of the work was started
under our code and state law he had to have the Certificate of Appropriateness. Our code is 7-4-
16 says that you have to have approval of alterations or new construction in historic districts or
involving historic properties before you do anything. Over and above that this work has already
taken place. The only other remedy that y’all have other than denying the request for the
Certificate of Appropriateness is to enforce the judicial remedy and have that work ripped out
which is not what I think this Commission would want. Those are your options at law.
Mr. Lorah: If I may the options that we had provided to him as I understand our
ordinance if indeed this is denied he does have the opportunity to come back with a different
design as long as it is substantially different than the one that was denied. And either of these
two options I would consider to be substantially different. So he does have the opportunity to
come back before us ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Lorah: --- with either of these options.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Davis I’ll hear, Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Well, then, Mr. Mayor you know I don’t think we need to take action on
the motion presented if we’re going to give him the carte blanc of coming back with another
proposal based on the frontage of his house. So why should we vote to either deny or approve
what has been presented when you’re going to allow him to come back again anyway. I say we
table this and let it go, not table it but we defer this back to Committee and then it be handled
outside of Committee by these two parties and then they bring us the new proposal that they can
agree upon.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson: I would disagree in that our code has characterized this action as an appeal.
We’re currently having a hearing on the record, recorded in the minutes and from this action Mr.
Davis has a right to appeal the no vote to the Superior Court. We’re having a hearing.
Mr. Grantham: Can he withdraw?
Ms. Johnson: He could.
Mr. Grantham: If he could withdraw without prejudice and bring it back.
The Clerk: Well, can he go back to HPC?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, just so I’m, sometimes I feel like we’re a court of law and not a
Commission.
34
Ms. Johnson: I’m sorry that’s what we provided in our code. All of these things are
heard by y’all after the respective authorities and boards make their recommendations.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and but I want to go by the letter of the law. Would it be appropriate
to allow a substitute motion for Mr. Davis to withdraw without prejudice to allow for them to
continue on with the proceeding?
Ms. Johnson: Yes and again I would defer to the Board of Historic Preservation if you
think that’s an option that would resolve this issue.
Mr. Lorah: We already went through one round of mediation and in my opinion although
we were willing, we being the Historical Commission, were willing to compromise Mr. Davis
was sticking to his desire to (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay just, it sounds like Madam Attorney that you’re saying that the next
option should we deny would be to go to court on this.
Ms. Johnson: For Mr. Davis.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Johnson: Or if y’all elected to determine that this work needs to come down since
there has been no meeting of the minds between the parties on what this elevation is going to
look like and the work that’s going to be done you could go to court to force him to take it down.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Davis, I’ll hear from you one more time and then we’ll.
Mr. Davis: If I may clarify this. Two years ago I purchased all of my permits. I had all
of my permits in order, posted in the window the entire two years that I’ve been working on this
house with contractors all around, the scaffolding all around. No one has ever approached me
and said I’m sorry, sir, but you have to have a commission, the Historical Commissioners to
approve this. No one ever told me that. I had all of my permits in order so that no one ever shut
me down because of the work that I was doing. And also I’d like to, I wanted to clarify that.
And also I would like to read here in 7-4-21 the Historical Commission By-Laws. The Historical
Preservation Commission shall approve the application and issue a seal if it finds the proposed
materials and or appearance will not have a substantial adverse effect on the historic or
agricultural significance, integrity and value of the historical property or property within the
historical district. And so I feel like I’m certainly not causing a substantial adverse affect to the
community. If you ride by here I’ll be glad to show any of you around what I’ve done to this
home and bring a petition of praise if you like. But I just had to mention these things to clarify.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Davis: Thank you for your time.
35
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham first and I’ll ask you, Mr. Bowles, if
you’d like to amend your motion to reflect the recommendation of the Attorney.
Mr. Brigham: I have a couple of questions and I don’t know exactly who to address them
to, Mr. Mayor. But I was curious as to whether or not the Certificate of Appropriateness is
included in the applications for building permits or not. And I need an answer to that. The other
thing is if I’m assuming Certificates of Appropriateness is always required in historic districts.
And that’s my understanding of the code and I need to know ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
Mr. Brigham: --- if that is correct or not. And then I’m going to need to know is if we
can say whether or not we disapprove of this design and send this back to the Commission to
vote on coming up with another solution.
Mr. Patty: Okay, a certificate is required when there’s any significant modification on
the exterior of the property, appearance of exterior of the property. And in this case I can tell
you that there’s been five, four permits issued since 19, since 2004. Schepes got one, the
previous owner, to replace the roof. Some of these certificates are granted by staff, that would be
me where there are minor certain issues that staff can approve and others are considered by the
Commission. Schepes got a permit to redo the roof in ’04 that was approved by staff. Schepes
got a, he got a certificate and building permits to do that. In ’05 he got a building permit to do
electrical work in the house. In ’06 Davis got a permit to restore a rotten porch overhang and do
interior work. In ‘06 he got a permit to rewiring. Neither of those were accompanied by
certificate. Neither based on the language on the permit would have required a certificate. In
’09 after he this came to a head and he was stopped and the HPC held a hearing he was given
permission to dry in the porch that had been framed and complete the other work, which he did.
And that was done based on a staff issued certificate. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Brigham: So a certificate is needed to do this work or not.
Ms. Johnson: It is needed.
Mr. Patty: Definitely needed to do the work he’s done.
Mr. Brigham: And there was a certificate approved?
Mr. Patty: No.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Patty: He accepted after he was stopped.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Patty: And he came before ---
36
Mr. Brigham: He came –--
Mr. Patty: and they gave him a certificate.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, then I guess my next question is to the Attorney. Can we deny this
design and send it back to the Historic Preservation Commission to resolve it?
Ms. Johnson: Yes, but not in the way that you just described.
Mr. Brigham: Then you tell me how.
Ms. Johnson: Yes, sir. What you would say is that the Historic Preservation
Commission abused its discretion in making the determination that the Certificate of
Appropriateness should be denied. And again I would caution you. I don’t think that has been
substantiated today on the record. The problem with this situation is first and foremost you’re
building in a historic neighborhood, Summerville. You are presumed to know that you’re
required to have this certificate. Ignorance of the law is not a defense civilly or criminally.
You’re presumed to know. You’re in an historic neighborhood. The certificate was required by
a previous owner, not by this owner.
Mr. Brigham: What I believe you’re telling me is there’s no current Certificate of
Appropriateness at this time.
Ms. Johnson: Correct. And the building took place ---
Mr. Brigham: And ---
Ms. Johnson: --- despite that.
Mr. Brigham: --- I understand that. What I’m trying to do is I’m trying, I think the
majority of the people sitting up here does not think this design is that we have presented by the
appellant is appropriate. I think what we’re trying to do is say that we don’t think this design is
appropriate and that we want to send it back to the Historic Preservation Commission to resolve
this matter and to issue the appropriate certificate for completion. I need to know how to word
the motion to attract that motion.
Mr. Mayor: And let me, Madam Attorney, what I had referenced earlier to have a motion
for Mr. Davis to remove his appeal without prejudice in order for the process to move forward
with the Historic Preservation Commission. Would that not be another way to?
Ms. Johnson: Inaudible.
Mr. Mayor: No.
37
Ms. Johnson: Options in that law are three. To approve the recommendation of the
Historic Preservation Commission. To approve and modify I suggest you do that. Approve and
modify what they’re requiring or you deny it as an abuse of discretion. The law limits your
options to three. So what might get you to where you want to be is to approve it but in this case
you can’t approve a denial then go back and do something different. So I think what you’re
going to have to do in this case is approve it.
Mr. Brigham: We’re going to have to approve?
Ms. Johnson: The denial of the request for Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Brigham: And what does that do at that point?
Ms. Johnson: There’s no further action to be had. What you’ve heard on the record
today other than an appeal by Mr. Davis to Superior Court. The Historic Preservation
Commission went to mediation they offered him two other design options, which he denied. The
only two things you have left to do is to deny it outright which I suggest you do, require it to be
ripped down or give Mr. Davis the opportunity to appeal to the Superior Court. Because your
only other option would be to approve the denial but request they modify their decision. But you
can’t modify the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness. A denial is a denial.
Mr. Brigham: So the motion is, is there a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion on the floor.
Mr. Brigham: To deny?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: Okay. I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Mayor: And we have a motion and a second.
Mr. Grantham: I’ve got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Well, then come to the microphone and ask Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Well, I’m just saying. Once we deny this petition of appropriateness then
we’re through with it.
Ms. Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: And we’re going to have to wait either they have the option at that time
of getting together. But if we remove the appeal as it presently stands and request that they get
38
together then you’ve got a reason for them to bring it back. Otherwise you’re not going to have a
reason for them to bring it back once we deny it.
Ms. Johnson: I understand what you’re saying. What I’m trying to get y’all to
understand is under state statue your options are limited to the three I laid out for you. You can
approve the denial, you can approve and request a modification or you can say that the board
abused its discretion. I don’t suggest that you select the latter especially if this goes on to
Superior Court.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: If you concur with the HPC he can come back at the next meeting with an
alternative. The ordinance provides for that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote
by the usual sign.
Mr. Holland: What was the motion?
The Clerk: The motion was to accept the recommendation of the HPC for denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Are we through all the zonings and everything now? Madam Clerk, next
agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
31. Motion to ratify Augusta’s application/request submission for a grant award from
HUD’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 in association with the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, this is a request to ratify a grant that was put in last week.
Based on the information that came down from HUD and the development of the grant it was
unable to, we did not have time to get it on the committee agenda last week. Chester was
working on the grant until late Wednesday, which prohibited that happening. We’ve been lucky
enough to do the application. It’s driven by several constraints that we really had no control
over. Those were selected by HUD and one of which was the selection of specific zip codes that
would qualify. The other would be the participation of local financing people and local
developers, which limited what we were doing in a greater manner than what we would normally
do in these particular grants. But the addition of that is that there’s no local money involved.
There’s not a match there. We had some discussion last week. We wanted to get it on the table
39
to move forward and to meet the deadline I requested the Mayor go ahead and sign that and
move forward. The ratification of that would allow that grant to be processed by HUD. There’s
no guarantee obviously that we would get that but there was a guarantee if we didn’t get on the
table our name would not be in the pot as we move forward with that. So that was sort of a quick
decision that unfortunately I made fairly quickly to get that in there. The total amount is about
$60 million dollars and we’re looking at several specific areas that qualify based on those
requirements that I told you and they are listed on the chart in the back there for you. Goshen 1,
2, downtown, (unintelligible) Harrisburg, Goshen 3 and Marion Homes. All those grants would
be available for some infrastructure money for roads some development and redevelopment of
houses and an opportunity to actually build some new houses and refurbish older houses. I
apologize for not having a little bit more discussion on this as we move forward. As I mentioned
in the previous couple meetings we’ve got several of these issues with the Recovery Act. The
turnaround times are fairly quick and like I said I made a decision to get our name in the pot.
The action would be appropriate today to either ratify that grant which we would hope you
would do and then see what happens if we actually get the grant itself which we should know
about in December. Some of the plans are still in the formative state as we go forward with that
but we did put in enough information to get our name in the pot. And I would ask that you
consider ratification at this point.
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that affect with no local ---
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Holland
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need a little clarification on this, Fred. What
concerns me here is that where I read that these zip codes are 30901, 04, 06 and 09 and 0815.
The chart below identifies the areas that were selected as focus areas by the partnering
developers, which are supported by a Letter of Commitment from a banking institution. Now the
zip codes that have been identified are 30901, 30904, 30906. But as I look in the back at the
chart I look and see where Goshen you know has been identified to receive perhaps almost half
of the funds. Can you give me an explanation on that if 30815 is, is this the focus on what some
of these funds are supposed or is the focus on the zip codes that were already listed and chosen,
30901, 30904, 30906. Are the funds supposed to go in these particular areas or are the funds
supposed to going in 30815?
Mr. Russell: And I apologize, I do not know the answer to your question. My major
concern was to get it on table so we met the deadline that we would have. I’d be more than
happy to get me you and Chester together to talk about that for sure. But as I got it on the table
that was a major concern is to get our name in the pot at that point. And I’d be more than happy
to try to get back with you and answer that question specifically.
Mr. Holland: Well, in view of that, Mr. Mayor, I would suggest and make a motion
that we would just postpone this until we have an opportunity to discuss this and get this
40
taken care of in the most appropriate manner then come back at the next Committee or
Commission meeting. And then approve this if that’s feasible.
Mr. Russell: That would not create a problem, Mr. Mayor. The ratification is just a
ratification of the action we’ve taken. You always have the option not to approve the grant
process if you go forward with that. In addition to that if we get the grant in December and we
do not, and the Commission does not approve of the outline that we did to get us there that’s
always an option too. And I think Coach’s idea is probably a good one there to go ahead and
come back with a little bit more definition there and I apologize for not knowing the answer.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Holland, is that is the form of a motion?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe Goshen’s in 30906. It’s the zip code for it. I don’t
understand the question. If it’s not in 30815 if we’re not trying to spend money in, are we trying
to spend money in 30815?
Mr. Mayor: Let me just, I think I can help clarify some of the situation too. The grant,
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program also required you to partner with developers. You had
to have those developers signed on ahead of time prior to submitting the grant application. So
the developers looked at potential projects throughout the community or in the designated zip
codes. So part of it was to get them to sign on to partner with you. They help drive where they
had feasible projects. So that, if that helps clarify a little bit. Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, as I read that it sort of stated that it would be developers as well
as the city government. Is that incorrect information in what we received?
Mr. Mayor: Well, there was input obviously from our Housing and Neighborhood
Development Department. But with the requirement of having local developers be a part of the
grant submission you couldn’t do one without the other. It cannot be all local government or so
you were required to have them put in the developers as well.
Ms. Beard: And I want to say one other thing. We’re talking about a stimulus for the
City of Augusta. And you all know how I have felt about revitalization in this area. And to have
done this and I not be contacted or many of the other or maybe none of the other Commissioners
is sort of unreal.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me just say for clarity as well. Dealing with the Recovery Funds
we are treading new ground. And these requirements come down and they give you deadlines
and you have to get the applications in. So it’s not your typical situation by any means but
there’s you know here again there’s $10 million dollars in there for a project in Harrisburg. I
41
think it’s, and I do think, it’s once again there’s no local match so if we didn’t apply we wouldn’t
have gotten any funds.
Ms. Beard: I am saying that’s no excuse. That is no excuse because we all knew there
would be different stimulus out there for certain projects and with so many of the other cities
they planned well ahead to determine exactly how these would be used so that it could be used to
the very best that they can. And you know I support Harrisburg. You know I support many
things in there. But that I was not given the opportunity to review everything and have some
input does not make me feel very good about this government.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Given the light of the situation that we’re
looking at here I’m a little confused on some of the numbering because the total’s up to about
$60,000 on this one sheet, excuse me $60 million on this one sheet here. And then I’m looking
at the $50 million on the request here from Chester to Fred. And I’m just a little concerned to
make sure that the 30815 which they’re referencing Goshen. And I can assure you it’s 30815 in
Goshen, the zip code. I see you’re shaking your head but unless you can show something
different me and Jimmy’s been sitting down here kind of talking about the 30815 Hephzibah area
code, zip code.
Mr. Jackson: It might be a Hephzibah zip code but Goshen’s a 30906 zip code.
Mr. Mason: One and two? One and two?
Mr. Brigham: As far as I know all of Goshen is 30916.
Mr. Holland: Then we just need to get specifics.
Mr. Mason: Fred, your deadline that you’re referencing is when?
Mr. Jackson: It’s past.
Mr. Russell: It’s past. We’ve got it in the hopper. That’s why I’m not concerned about
the ratification.
Mr. Mason: Oh, it’s in there. Okay, so come Monday at the Administrative Services
Committee meeting it would be discussed, be ratified or whatever, whatever’s need we can do it
right then, right?
Mr. Russell: Yeah, that’s ---
Mr. Mason: Fine, that would be my recommendation.
42
Mr. Mayor: And once again I just want to clearly state and I think I support Coach’s
motion but really with the stimulus funds or the recovery act funds it’s, we’re dealing with
guidelines and it’s a new program completely. And I think if you speak to local governments
around the nation there’s a lot of confusion but when they sort of come in fits and starts and
when they become available you have to be ready to apply for them. So there was no intent to
keep folks out of the loop. I can assure you of that, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do think some will be attending our National Convention but
for those who have been attending we have known for years these things were coming down.
And we have known for years and many of them had their plans and they were ready to go with
transit and what have you and that we did not. And I mean when we go it’s not easy for us to
bring the information back so that it is acceptable by this group. But I am saying that you could
bypass the Administrative Committee and do this is not fair to the citizens of Augusta. Because
we’re here and we represent them.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, okay, fine. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Johnson: Which motion are we voting on?
The Clerk: To refer it back to the Administrative Services Committee for the
Administrator to report on.
Mr. Grantham: To clean it up.
The Clerk: Report is a better word.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Jackson vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Ms. Beard: And Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The agenda item has been disposed of, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I need to speak with the lawyer before leaving, okay?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
32. Report from the Administrator regarding on-going projects.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission just a few minutes of your time to
let you know how we’re doing on several projects that are ongoing. As you noticed when you
drive by Walton Way and James Brown Boulevard they’ve got the third floor of the new
43
courthouse underway there. We’re moving along fairly quickly with that. I’m pleased to report
that that’s ahead of schedule and still on budget as we move forward with that. In addition the
library they’ve got bricks and as you drive by today they’re actually putting windows in the
building as we speak. We will be moving with that fairly quickly. Again we’ll be doing a
drying-in program and probably have you all there to help participate with that. As in the near
future we’ll be doing a topping off of the courthouse. I think it’s a top floor on that. Both of
those projects are on budget and on schedule. The jail itself that we’re working on is still on
budget. We’re a little bit behind due to some constraints that we’ve had there but we actually
have a plan to get that back on schedule. And I’ll be meeting with the contractor in the next few
days, or next week to be talking about that as we continue to move forward. In addition to that
we’ve got in the near future you’ll be looking at the recommendations for the SPLOST VI
bonding. As you know we’ve got to get that moved forward before the end of the year. So we’ll
be doing that. And we’re still working diligently on the tasks that were given us last week on the
TEE Center and Bethlehem, Laney-Walker as we move forward with that and hopefully
sometime in the near future we’ll be able to bring that information back to you in the format that
you’ve requested. Just to keep you abreast of what’s going on we’ll be doing more of a briefing
at the meeting, the second meeting in August as we’ve done in the past with the slides and the
pictures. I just wanted to make you aware that we are progressing well with that information.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to receive that as information?
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: And Madam Attorney I believe, okay, no?
Ms. Johnson: No.
Mr. Mayor: We do not need a Legal meeting. Thank you, Amen. With no further
business to come before the body we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
44
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
July 21, 2009.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
45