HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting - June 15, 2010
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
JUNE 15, 2010
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., June 16, 2010, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Aiken, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Samuel T. Solomon, Jr., Pastor, Thankful
Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend if you could please come forward I have something for you. Yes
sir and thank you so much for that wonderful invocation. Office of the Mayor. By these present
be it known that Reverend Samuel T. Solomon, Jr. Associate Pastor, Thankful Baptist Church is
Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the
th
community serves as an example for all the faith community. Given under my hand this 15 of
June 2010. Thank you, sir. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the recognitions.
RECOGNITIONS
Employee of the Month Award
A. Mr. Ronald Crowden, Fleet Manager, Fleet Operations Department.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, our Employee of the Month Mr. Ron Crowden along with those in
our Finance Department and Fleet Management Department. Mr. Grantham is a member of the
finance, Chairman of the Finance Committee if you’d like to participate in this. Mr. Crowden?
Ms. Williams? Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Come on, Ms. Williams.
The Clerk: Dear Mayor Copenhaver. The Employee Recognition Committee has
selected Ronald Crowden as the May 2010 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta.
Ronald Crowden who is currently the fleet manager in the fleet operations department. He has
been employed with the city for eighteen years. Ronald Crowden was nominated by Mr. Tim
Schroer, Assistant Finance Director in the Finance Department. Ronald Crowden is responsible
for the fleet management for the county, which includes contract management and supervision of
the vehicle and equipment maintenance contract, the field program, the equipment replacement
program for all departments. In addition the disposal of surplus equipment has been added to his
responsibilities. Mr. Crowden has developed a program to deal with the disposal of surplus
equipment by researching alternatives and the result was to implement an online auction. The
Commission approved this program in October 2009. The youth of the online auction service
increases the number of people that have an opportunity to bid on items available and increasing
the potential revenue generated by the auction. This program has also reduced the holding time
for surplus property and reduced storage issues caused by the old process of an annual auction.
1
The Employee Recognition Committee felt that based on this nomination and Mr. Crowden’s
dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta they would appreciate you in joining us in
awarding him the May 2010 Employee of the Month Award. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And I’ll just, I just want to thank you for the wonderful job you do and on
this well deserved award. Dear Mr. Crowden. 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 May
2010. 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 an asset to the
Augusta Richmond County Fleet Management Department and to the citizens of Augusta
Georgia. Please accept my personal congratulation on this wonderful award. You are truly
deserving of this recognition. Sincerely yours, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Grantham: Ron, with as many vehicles as this city has running in our streets we
really thank you for the fine job you do in helping maintain those and keep them up to date to
where we don’t have to buy quite as many now as we did when I first came on this commission.
So thank you for a job well done. This award is well deserved. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Crowden: I thank the committee for the selection and it’s truly my honor to serve
this great community and my privilege to serve in the Finance Department. Thank you all.
(APPLAUSE)
RECOGNITIONS
Human Resources Department
B. Georgia Local Governmental Personnel Association’s “Large Agency Award” to
Augusta-Richmond County.
The Clerk: At this moment we’d like to acknowledge the Georgia Local Governmental
Personnel Association’s award to Augusta Richmond County the Large Agency Award. And
we’ll ask our HR Director, Mr. Rod Powell, if he would come forward to present this to the
Mayor.
Mr. Powell: Well, first of all I want to thank the Mayor, the Commission, my boss Fred
Russell and my other boss, all the employees of this wonderful city for this great award. HR has
come a long way in the last year or so. We practice continuous improvement. We still have a
long way to go. This is a great milestone and my number one thanks of all goes out to the people
of HR. I think we’ve got some people in the room if you’d raise your hand just to be recognized
for a second. And thank all of you for all that you do. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And just to share the wording of this award. I just want to applaud
everybody in HR as well. Y’all are doing a great job. This is a statewide award for excellence
and I’ve said particularly based on what we discussed last week in the retreat that’s what this
Commission and the Government is striving for. So congratulations on the award. Georgia
Local Government Personnel Association “Large Agency Award” presented to Augusta
2
Richmond County in recognition of outstanding contributions in the field of Human Resources
Management. So congratulations again. (APPLAUSE)
The Clerk: Mr. Mason, is S.A.M.U. here?
Mr. Mason: Can we call for them? I don’t know if they’re on the outside.
The Clerk: S.A.M.U. South Augusta Marching Unit. Are you in the chamber? Are you
in the hall?
Mr. Mayor: If we can get y’all past the cameras, come on in.
RECOGNITIONS
South Augusta Marching Unit
th
C. South Augusta Marching Unit (S.A.M.U.) in recognition of their 10 Anniversary of
providing service to the youth of Augusta, Georgia. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Alvin
Mason)
Mr. Mason: We have some representatives here from South Augusta Marching Unit
which not only represents South Augusta and represents South Augusta well but they represent
Augusta as a whole. And as the Mayor mentioned earlier in keeping with recognizing those of
our employees as well as our citizens out in the community that as doing fantastic things
especially with our young people. And this group from south of, the South Augusta Marching
Unit has been together for ten years. I attended the ten-year anniversary just last week and we
had a fantastic time. And they do some wonderful things with our children out there not only
from a musical standpoint but from a educational standpoint. So we thought it appropriate to go
ahead and recognize them for the job that they do. The person that you don’t see here is Ms.
Bridgett Jackson who’s the present director of the South Augusta Marching Unit. I just do want
to give her, her credit in her absence that she has done a fantastic job with the children and with
the teams that are a part of this organization. Many of them have gone on to do great things
within this community and other communities as well. What you’re going to hear the Mayor
will read off of the Certificate of Recognition. But I did just want to give Ms. Jackson that credit
as her mother walks in now this is Mrs. Jackson the mother of Bridget Jackson and also one of
the lay persons that labor very hard with our children to try to make a difference in their lives.
And so at this point we just want to recognize the South Augusta Marching Unit with a
Certificate of Recognition from the Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I would like to say great job on taking
the time on your leadership to really recognize excellence throughout the community. And thank
you to the South Augusta Marching Unit for all that you do for the community. Certificate of
th
Recognition given to South Augusta Marching Unit on the occasion of their 10 Anniversary.
Whereas the South Augusta Marching Unit affectionately known as S.A.M.U. has served
Augusta, Georgia for ten years with quality musical programs and services and has thereby
afforded the citizens of Augusta additional musical recreational and academic opportunity. And
whereas S.A.M.U. has been recognized with over 75 awards to include the Giving Your Best
Award from Channel 6 in 2004 and has traveled extensively throughout the southeastern United
3
States representing Augusta Georgia. And whereas for the past 10 years S.A.M.U. has held and
honored its pledge I pledge my heart to S.A.M.U. and my soul to God I can overcome any
obstacles even if it is hard. I can accomplish anything because there are no ifs. For I am the
founder of my destiny and the captain of my ship. Therefore the City of Augusta recognizes and
commends you for your desire to encourage all youth to have a greater appreciation for their
fellow peers and your efforts to improve the lives of those you serve through humanitarian,
education and community service. We greatly appreciate your commitment, hard work and the
enthusiasm you have shown to emphasize the importance of musical and academic excellence
and your efforts to inspire our youth to perform at their best with your message of empowerment,
th
self motivation and artistic awareness. Given this 15 Day of June 2010. Deke Copenhaver,
Mayor. (APPLAUSE)
Ms. Speaker: Good Afternoon, everybody. I’m Bridgett’s mother. I’m going to give
you a little history because I know I don’t have time. We started with ten kids with what I’m
doing. We were first downtown. Mr. James Brown sponsored the children. And we went from
ten to a hundred. Kept on going. We have been to Georgia Carolina, North Carolina, Florida,
Louisiana, Alabama. We have won first place at most all of our events. There is an event going
on in Chicago (unintelligible) and we are here to find a sponsor and if we can someone to pay for
the bus so our kids can attend this function, oh my gosh. We just need some help with our
children because we’re trying to encourage them to reach for the sky. We have some kids that
have graduated from college, just getting ready to graduate this year in college coming out of
high school, elementary. We only have about 2% that has took the wrong road. Most of the
other kids has married, the military and gone on about their life. They all, the kids come back to
help the children and we’re just here to say thank you and try to get a sponsor to help us get to
th
Chicago August the 13.
Mr. Mason: Well, let’s give them a round of applause for what they do. If there is a
sponsor in the audience you can feel free to contact me Commissioner Mason at 955-6130.
That’s 955-6130 and we can make that happen. But we want to say thank you for the job that
you are doing with our children out in South Augusta. You’ve really made us proud. But you’ve
made all of Augusta proud and we thank you for your continued service and your continued
excellence. Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
D. Mr. Ross Snellings RE: Friends of the Municipal Golf Course “The Patch.” (Requested
by Commissioner Bill Lockett)
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Snellings: Absolutely. I guess to start it I heard on the radio about the possible
demise of the beloved Cabbage Patch. At least my beloved and a lot of Augusta’s beloved
Cabbage Patch. And I went to the meeting there a few weeks ago. A room filled with other
4
devotees of the Cabbage Patch and my one thing that I wanted to share was some historical
knowledge of it that perhaps is not widely known that was told to me by the late Eileen Stulb, the
well know amateur golfer from Augusta who won the Georgia Amateur. Play very well in the
famous tile holder’s tournament a few times and she grew up as a great friend of David Ogilvy.
What probably sets the Cabbage Patch apart from most other municipal golf courses in the
United States I believe is the quality of the layout. Now the condition in my lifetime has never
been great. That’s no secret. It varies from time to time. But I always could see what I thought
was some inspiration by how the holes were routed and where things were located on the course
that somebody must have had some pretty good knowledge of the game who did this. And
through my conversations with Eileen Stulb it was discovered that the architect of the Patch was
none other than David Ogilvy from Levan Fife Scotland who was also incidentally the original
architect of the Hill Course at the Augusta Country Club. Donald Ross worked on that course
later, the famous Donald Ross but David Oily was the first architect. David Ogilvy came to the
United States in 1899 to play in the 1899 U.S. Open at the Baltimore Country Club. And while
he was there he was met by a delegation of Augustans who were looking for a new golf
professional to shepherd their new golf club then known at the Bon Air Golf Club now known as
the Augusta Country Club. Coincidently one of the current pros at the Augusta Country Club
was playing in the 1899 U.S. Open and was runner-up. But for whatever reason these Augustans
were looking for a new golf pro to take over at the Bon Air Golf Club and they met David
Ogilvy, David Ogilvy there who had been trained at St. Andrews under the famous Old Tom
Morris, there at the famous old course at St. Andrews is where David Ogilvy received instruction
in greens keeping, gold architecture and how to run a golf club. They interviewed numerous
applicants there but selected Mr. Ogilvy to come to Augusta to be their golf pro. And he served
in the position as head pro at the Augusta Country Club from 1899 I believe on through about
1950, 1948, fifty somewhere in there. Much loved golf professional who really helped us
establish the game firmly in Augusta and you really can’t overstate the importance of that to the
later history of Augusta being that the first golf course that the great Bobby Jones came to love in
Augusta was the Hill Course at the Augusta Country Club. And that’s when Bobby Jones began
to come to Augusta to play and practice to ready himself for his victories in his great major
championships and later led to his selection of Augusta as the home for his dream course, of
course the Augusta National. But something else David Ogilvy did while he was here in
Augusta is something that Eileen Stulb told me was what he considered to be one of the most
important things he’d ever done in his career and that was to design a golf course for the working
people of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Snellings I hate to cut you off but that’s ---
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: May I please request that you allow him an additional two minutes for
something that’s so extraordinarily important?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I try to keep it at five for everybody but I’ll give him two more
minutes.
5
Mr. Lockett: Thank you very much.
Mr. Snellings: I’ll wind it up. So he did it. David Ogilvy designed the Cabbage Patch
for the working people of Augusta. That was his background, it was important for him to give
that to the people of Augusta. That is why we have what I consider to be and many people who
love the Patch consider to be a well-designed golf course with a great history. And when you’re
watching the British Open at St. Andrew’s this year think about the fact that the designer of our
little municipal golf course in Augusta was trained right there at St. Andrews where the British
Open is being played and that he brought the knowledge he learned there under the legendary
Old Tom Morris the colossus of golf and brought that knowledge to Augusta to build our
municipal course. So from one great capital of golf St. Andrews to another great capital of golf
Augusta, Georgia let’s see if we can find some way that Augusta and you can buy a tee shirt that
says we’re the capital of golf. Let’s see if Augusta can find a way to save its municipal golf
course. It seems almost amazing that it’s even being considered. Of all places on earth we can’t
find a way to keep our community operating. Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, a point of privilege, please?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I thank you for allowing him the additional minutes to speak.
And, Mr. Snellings, I want to thank you so very much. And, Mr. Mayor, when I got in contact
with that man he was in West Virginia and he told me that he would drop everything and be here.
It means that much to him. Thank you so very much. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: And, thank you, sir. Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the next delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
E. Mr. Peter Knollmeyer, Vice President of Strategic Planning. Savannah River Nuclear
Solutions LLC. (Requested by Commissioner Joe Bowles)
Mr. Mayor: And if we could try to keep it to five minutes as well, please, sir.
Mr. Knollmeyer: I will definitely keep it to five minutes. Thank you, Commission, for
having me here. I’m just going to wet your appetite in five minutes. I’ll just wet your appetite in
five minutes. We’re doing strategic planning for the future of the Savannah River Site. I
represent Savannah Nuclear Solutions the management and operating contract. We’re out talking
to the community about what we’re doing and looking for feedback to help improve what we’re
doing to help support the local communities. If we do nothing this is what the profile of the
Savannah River Site looks like. Along the bottom you have some enduring missions from the
National Nuclear Security Administration and the Savannah River National Lab. But in green is
6
the declining scope of work that is cleanup at the site. My job is to figure out how to grow work
to fill in this gap or even grow it higher such that this site continues to grow and thrive. So in
pursuit of that we’ve come up with a number of initiatives. The senior leadership team on the
site is pursuing quite a number of things that all fit within the current expertise of the site. We’re
not reinventing the site. We’re not going after wild new missions that aren’t in keeping with
what’s been historically done on that site. Listed on this chart is the five major areas that we’re
focusing on. All five of those support growth of the Savannah River National Lab as all of those
involve expertise that is currently resident at the Savannah River National Lab. In addition to
those initiatives none of them are possible unless we have some enabling initiative on the site.
We need a work force to continue to run that site. The average age is about 54. There’s new
technologies coming, there’s new facilities being built at the Vogtle Plant. There needs to be
cooperation here locally to develop the work force that’s going fuel the engine in the Augusta
region. We need to upgrade and extend the infrastructure life on the site. There has not been a
lot of investment over the years. Fifty-seven odd years old. Most of the infrastructure out there
needs updating. We need to also modernize the business systems and the performance processes
out there to make sure we’re a well run efficient site spending the tax payers dollar the wisest
possible way we can. And as the cleanup scope comes down that’s managed by Environmental
Management of the Department of Energy. They are the current landlord. As other missions
come up there’s a natural landlord transition that will probably occur out there. We’re in the
process of trying to help the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration plan for the orderly transition of who will be the long-term landlord of that site.
So what does that mean to Richmond County and Augusta? This is how the site budget out there
is spent today. If you add this $367 million to the 830 it’s about 1.2 billion spent for the
management and operation of that site. This money is spent outside the local six-county regions
so we’ve only broken down the 830 million that’s spent locally. As you can see Richmond
County is about 109 million of the 830 million spent in the local area. What’s made up of that
money? It’s the payroll for the employees it’s the procurements that are let in Richmond
County. It’s the community contributions to Richmond County that DOE payment in lieu of
taxes. That’s the contribution. So with that I’ve completed my five minutes. I invite anybody
who’d like to get a longer talk for their community group you can contact us and we’d be happy
to do that and there’s the contact information.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I just want to say thanks for coming in and, Commissioner Bowles,
thanks for requesting this. I just have a couple quick comments. And one I guess was the reuse
organization issue the report last summer that we’re looking at 10,000 jobs in the nuclear
industry alone in the local market place in the next ten years. So I applaud you for getting out
there to try to educate the public because I agree we need to create that work force. And it’s best
if it comes locally and it’s easiest for you guys I know. The second thing I just wanted to touch
on, the FBI lab. Could you just make a quick mention of that?
Mr. Knollmeyer: We’ve been working with the FBI for a number of years in the wake of
911 and the anthrax scares. The FBI had a hard time getting ready to spin up to handle anthrax-
contaminated evidence. And so at that time they decided they’d better prepare to handle
radioactively contaminated evidence in the event there’s ever a dirty bomb event in the United
States. So the FBI’s been doing work in some crude facilities at the Savannah River National
Lab for the past seven or eight years. They made a major investment to upgrade some of our
7
facilities and now have a permanent state of the art lab at Quantico, South East if you want to
call it that. We can do finger prints, DNA everything in a glove box environment with the
evidence that’s also contaminated with radioactivity. So that’s a good long-term mission for the
site.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Thank you so much.
Mr. Knollmeyer: You’re welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-25, items 1-25. For the benefit of any
objectors once the petition is read if there are any objectors to any of the petitions would you
please signify your objections by raising your hand once the petition is read. I call your attention
to item one.
Item 1: Is a petition for requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to
Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property at 846 and 850 Heard Avenue.
Item 2: Is requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to
Zone R-1E (One family Residential) affecting property on Lumping, Jackson and Jefferson
Streets.
Item 3: Is a request for a change of zoning from a Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone
R-1B (One-family Residential) affecting property known as 3111 Mike Padgett Highway.
Item 4: Is for a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home at property
located at 2820 Butler Manor Drive.
Item 5: With conditions a request for a change of zoning from a Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property known as 900
Baker Avenue.
Item 6: With conditions for a Special Exception affecting property at the south end of
Bennock Mill Road intersects with the CSX railroad line.
Item 7: Is requesting a Special Exception affecting property on the right-of-way line of
Monte Carlo Drive.
Item 8: Is to approve a Special Exception to establish a church affecting property at 1510
Halton Road.
Item 9: Is for a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home affecting
property known as 1406 Hephzibah McBean Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Russell: --- objector to item eight.
The Clerk: Eight okay.
Mr. Russell: And if you could tell me which item you’re ---
Mr. Speaker: (inaudible).
8
The Clerk: Seven?
Mr. Russell: And two to item seven.
The Clerk: Okay. I call your attention to our Public Services portion of the agenda. If
there are any objectors to any of these alcohol petitions, well we only have one, to this particular
alcohol petition please signify your objection by raising your hand.
Item 10: Is a request for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with the C-Mart located at 3403 Mike Padgett Highway. Any objectors to that alcohol petition?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-25 with objectors for item
seven and item eight on our Planning petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Gentlemen, do we have any additions to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I believe you can add item number, I’m looking for it, where’s yours at,
twenty-eight to the consent.
The Clerk: Okay, well, let me read that. Well, once we finish if there are any others ---
Mr. Mayor: We’ll come back. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Under the Finance section of the regular agenda
I’ve conferred with several of our members and we, I would like to put item number 29, 30, 31,
32 and 33 on the consent agenda.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor, I need some discussion on thirty-two.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, on ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: --- on thirty-one are we following the plans that Mr. Russell laid outline
for the ones that were here the other day or are we going to do something other than that?
9
Mr. Russell: It would be my feeling that what we do is look at the initial study first then
come back to you with recommendations based on that.
Mr. Brigham: We’re following the outline that we’re going through with the initial study
that Mr. Russell on doing I don’t have a problem. If we’re doing something else I think we need
to discuss it.
Mr. Russell: And that’s covered under the title of the action item here.
Mr. Brigham: I just wanted to make sure it was clear.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Okay,
hearing none do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to pull item number seven that we
had some objection to. And I also want to pull item number eighteen.
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Point of Clarification. Item number four is saying 2820 Butler Manor
Drive it’s saying District 2. I think that is District 5.
The Clerk: It probably is.
Mr. Mason: It is.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s probably an oversight. You’re probably right it is five.
Mr. Johnson: We need to make sure that is ---
The Clerk: That is clarified.
Mr. Johnson: --- clarified so the constituents know about that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Would there be a reason we could not put item number thirty-five on the
consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Is everybody good with that?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
10
Mr. Brigham: --- I’m concerned with the fact that nobody was consulted about any
appointments other than the DDA. I would, I thought we were going to talk about the way
people are appointed to boards and authorities. And I have a problem, not with this one but with
the fact that we have not had any input at all to any appointments to the DDA other than the
nominees.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so do we have unanimous consent to add this one and then have that
discussion?
Mr. Brigham: I’m not going to object to adding it ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: --- but I do think we need to have a discussion about it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so we’re okay with thirty-five. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor I’d like to pull item eighteen.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: I’d like to pull twenty-five.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion? Madam
Clerk, just for the record and for clarity if we could just read back the items added and the items
to be pulled for discussion.
The Clerk: Items added to the consent agenda, items 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 and 35. Items
pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion items 7, 8, 18 and 25. For the benefit of
any objectors to item 28 the alcohol petition please let us know by, once I’ve read the petition. A
request for an on premise consumption Liquor Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with H&H Restaurant Group located at 399 Highland Avenue. Are there any objectors to that
alcohol petition?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
11
PLANNING
1. Z-10-39 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Jerry Reynolds, on behalf of Security Federal Bank
requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family
Residential) affecting property containing .32 acres and known as 846 and 850 Heard
Avenue. (Tax Map 035-3-345-00-0 and 035-3-346-00-0) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-10-36 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Irene Hill requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property
listed below: Tract A – contains approximately 2 acres and consists of six tax parcels that
are known as 2210-12 and 2214-16 Lumpkin Road; 2901-03, 2905-01 and 2909-11 Jackson
Street; and 2901-03 and 2905-07 Jefferson Street. (Tax Map 109-2-017-00-0, 109-0-016-00-
0, 110-1-021-00-0, 110-1-022-00-0, 110-1-023-00-0, 109-2-018-00-0 and 109-2-019-00-0)
DISTRICT 6 – Tract B – contains approximately 3.23 acres and consists of eleven tax
parcels that are known as 2913-15, 2917-19, 2921-23, 2925-27, 2929-31, 2933-35 and 2937-
39 Jackson Street and 2904-2-04, 2906-08, 2910-12 and 2914-16 Jefferson Street. (Tax Map
109-2-048-00-0, 109-2-049-00-0, 109-2-050-00-0, 109-2-051-00-0, 109—2-052-00-0, 109-2-
053-00-0, 109-2-054-00-0, 109-2-058-00-0, 109-2-057-00-0, 109-2-056-00-0 and 109-2-055-00-
0) DISTRICT 6
3. Z-10-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Mark Pope requesting a change of zoning from Zone
B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1B (One-Family Residential) affecting property
containing .24 acres and is known as 3111 Mike Padgett Highway. (Tax Map 111-3-063-00-
0) DISTRICT 6
4. Z-10-34 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Emily Galloway 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 approximately .21
acres and is known as 2820 Butler Manor Drive. (Tax Map 119-0-424-00-0) DISTRICT 2
5. Z-10-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the only use of the property be an
ambulance substation or those uses allowed in a B-1(Neighborhood Business Zone) and 2) a
6 foot chain link fence with motion detected illumination be allowed around the rear of the
property; a petition by Frank Lindley, on behalf of Gold Cross EMS, requesting a change
of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property containing .28 acres and is known as 900 Baker Avenue. (Tax Map 045-1-071-00-
0, 045-1-071-01-0 and 045-1-072-00-0) DISTRICT 1
6. Z-10-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) an access driveway to River Road
in Burke County be constructed and utilized for all shipments to Burke County before any
mining begins; 2) a 50 foot vegetative buffer be constructed and maintained around the
property except for that area designated by the petitioner on the site plan presented with
this petition where a 100 foot vegetative buffer shall be constructed and maintained; and 3)
no truck traffic on Flake Road; a petition by Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins and Murray LLP, on
behalf of Jerry T. Ashmore Jr., requesting a Special Exception to allow the excavation of
mineral deposits per Section 26-1 (Q) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
12
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing approximately 400 acres and
located 1,400 feet, more or less, east of where the south end of Bennock Mill road intersects
the CSX railroad line. (Tax Map 700-0-004-01-0) DISTRICT 8
9. Z-10-33 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Marie A. Alvarez 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 approximately 1
acre and is known as 1406 Hephzibah McBean Road. (Tax Map 336-0-037-00-0)
DISTRICT 8
PUBLIC SERVICES
11. Motion to approve the award of a Fireworks display contract to Zambelli Fireworks,
th
Inc. in the amount of $20,000 for the July 4 Celebration. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 7, 2010)
12. Motion to approve a professional services agreement for A/E services associated with
improvements to The Boathouse Community Building to Virgo Gambill Architects for
$24,000. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 7, 2010)
13. Motion to proceed with the elimination of Bus Route 15 – Medical Complex. (Approved
by Public Services Committee June 7, 2010)
ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES
14. Motion to approve the Augusta-Richmond County revised forest fire protection
agreement and fiscal year 2011 invoice in the amount of $11,013. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee June 7, 2010)
15. Motion to approve the execution of a Quit-Claim Deed between the City of Augusta for
License and Inspection Department, Code Enforcement Division, Richmond County Tax
FIFA (Grantor) and Lester Laughinghouse (Grantee) regarding the transfer of liens on
property at 1128 Florence Street. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June
7, 2010)
PUBLIC SAFETY
16. Motion to approve contract with EarthChannel, Inc. to provide Streaming and On-
Demand Video Services. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 7, 2010)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
17. Motion to approve a request to change the road name of Harrison Street between
D’Antignac Street and Laney-Walker Boulevard, in its entirety, to C.S. Hamilton Way.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2010)
19. Motion to approve the execution the Local Government Lighting Project Agreement
submitted by the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) on project NH000-520-
01 (017) PI 210700, improvements to I-520 from Gordon Highway to Deans Bridge Road,
which states that GDOT shall be responsible for the installation, including all costs of
materials to install high mast street lighting at the Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge
Road interchanges and Augusta-Richmond County shall provide the energy, operation and
maintenance for these systems; and approve the Resolution authorizing execution of the
Local Government Lighting Project Agreement and designation of the Mayor and Clerk of
13
Commission as appropriate persons to execute these documents as requested by AED.
Funding will come from the Street Lights account 276-041610-5312310. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2010)
20. Motion to determine that a portion of Hollis Road, as shown on the attached plat and
consisting of 0.09 acres (4,106 square feet), has ceased to be used by the public to the extent
that no substantial public purpose is served by it, and a public hearing shall be held
regarding the issue of abandonment pursuant to O.C.G.A. §32-7-2. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2010)
21. Motion to grant Georgia Power Company an Easement for Underground Utilities at the
Solid Waste Landfill located at 4330 Deans Bridge Road, Blythe, Georgia 30805, and have
the documents executed by the Mayor and Clerk of Commission. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2010)
22. Motion to approve award of contract and expenditure of SPLOST funds dedicated to
the New TEE Center, in the amount of $68,850, for basic Commissioning Services verifying
full functionality of all systems to Total Systems Commissioning following evaluation of
responses to Bid Item #10-087. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 7,
2010)
23. Motion to authorize to R.W. Allen, LLC to award Bid Package #1 to Amano McGann
of Norcross, GA, in the amount of $250,930.00, to furnish and install the parking control
equipment, for the TEE Center. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 7,
2010)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on June
1, 2010.
PUBLIC SERVICES
28. New Ownership Application: A.N. 10-33: A request by Duane Harris for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with H&H Restaurant
Group, Inc. located at 399 Highland Avenue. There will be Sunday Sales. District 7. Super
District 10. (Requested by Commissioner Joe Bowles)
FINANCE
29. Approve request from Sheriff’s Office to replace 2 police motorcycles for their road
patrol division.
30. Approve a request from Sheriff’s Office to purchase one vehicle for use by Sheriff’s
Narcotics Division using a Federal Grant for the purchase.
31. Consider a request from the Augusta Museum of History to fund a study relative to
emergency funding regarding the replacement of the roof on the building.
32. Discussion of Hyatt Place Parking Deck Bonds and receive as information Hyatt Place
Hotel Bonds by the Downtown Development Authority.
33. Receive as information First Quarter 2010 Financial.
APPOINTMENTS
14
35. Consider the recommendation of the Downtown Development Authority for the
following appointment (due to the resignation of Paul King) of Rick Allen to fill the
unexpired term.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk, I abstain on alcohol, please.
The Clerk: Okay. That motion is unanimous with Mr. Hatney abstaining of the alcohol
petitions.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Items 10, 28]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 9, 11-17, 19-24, 28-33, 35]
Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, Commissioner Lockett, I believe there are a number of
people here for the Municipal Golf Course Study Subcommittee. I know it’s hot and so I don’t
want to keep them any longer that they have to be so I’d like to go ahead and call that agenda
item. I believe it’s item number thirty-four first.
The Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE
Municipal Golf Course
34. Consider recommendations from the Municipal Golf Course Study Subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Back in December the Commission chose to
establish a subcommittee to study that operation of the Patch to see if we could come up with a
solution to make the Patch at least break even because they’ve been losing money. For the past
several months the committee, friends of the Patch and everybody else that’s been working
extremely hard to come up with a recommendation. You heard Mr. Snellings a few minutes ago
taking about the historical value of the Patch. The Patch is for working people, people who can
not afford to go to the Augusta Country Club or can not afford to go to Augusta National and
cannot afford to go to Forest Hills. And you know just recently Augusta State University won
the NCAA Golf Tournament. So now we are the Patch. We are national champions at the
college and we have Augusta National Golf Course. We are indeed the capital of the world.
And because of ASU’s success when it’s willfully publicized in the coming months every little
young boy and girl is going to want to go out there and get their little white balls. But we’ve got
to have somewhere for them to hit it and the Patch is indeed the place. All of my colleagues was
presented with a breakout with a budget that Mr. Beck and these people put together and you
also were given a recommendation from the subcommittee. It says at your pleasure if you would
like for Mr. Beck to get up and give his presentation, if you need that if you would like for
15
Finance to give their presentation if you like for the Administrator to give his, it’s your pleasure.
If you just let me know. And I have a recommendation that I would like to make. You may not
want to talk to any of them so I will go on and make my recommendation. The Patch is
improving financially. The anticipated loss for 2010 is not as great as we thought it would be.
The projected loss for 2011 is going to be much greater than the loss for 2010 and 2009. The
subcommittee decided after considerable work and consternation with others that the Patch is not
the only golf course that’s losing money. There are many golf courses in the state of Georgia
that’s losing money because of the economy and because we had quite a few rainy weekends. So
my motion is that my colleagues and this body I move that we approve the additional monies,
about $40,000 dollars for the Patch to remain solvent throughout 2010 and effective 1 January
2011 that the Patch be placed under the General Fund and if anticipated, that with all of the
changes that we put in place that the Patch will probably lose about $70,000 dollars in 2011.
And we expect that number to go down. I would love to have a second to this motion.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions. One, did the Committee ever consider
out looking at a management company to operate the Patch? Because I believe this Commission
has gone on record numerous times at that and I don’t believe I’ve seen that in any discussion at
the committee. And was there really a recommendation of the committee or is this the
recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee?
Mr. Lockett: No, the Chairman doesn’t have that authority. This is a direct
recommendation of the subcommittee. And we did consult, we consulted with a pro from Jones
Creek, that was one of the people. And we had other people that came into our meeting and said
we also talked too. So there was considerable consternation going on.
Mr. Mayor: And was this based on a vote of the subcommittee?
Mr. Lockett: My motion was definitely the vote, the unanimous vote of the
subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bowles: I’d like clarification of ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: --- (Inaudible) --- no official vote taken.
Mr. Lockett: The, let me clarify that. The subcommittee I agree Mr. Bowles is correct.
Mr. Bowles, when I queried them on that he said that, I understood them to say that some parts
of it he was in favor of but he wasn’t going to commit. So I will rephrase that. The other
members on the committee, five members and one alternate gave the recommendation I just
16
presented to you. And hopefully I will find out now what Commissioner Bowles
recommendation it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some clarification here and I need to
know do we have the subcommittee members in the audience today.
Mr. Lockett: All the members that are present would you please stand?
Mr. Mason: Would you please stand, the subcommittee members? I don’t want to take
for granted that someone is speaking for you or not. Maybe we can poll you to see whether or
not you are in favor of this motion, Mr. Mayor, if that’s appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: That would be appropriate. If you are indeed in favor of the motion that’s
been presented by the Chairman of the Subcommittee could you please raise your hand? Okay.
Mr. Mason: How many total subcommittee members are there?
Mr. Lockett: The Commission in December of last year authorized six members.
However I took it upon myself to get an alternate just in case somebody dropped out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Lockett: It was two members from the Commission, two members of the Patch and
two citizens.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m not going to vote on this but I’m going to
ask a question. The reason I’m not going to vote I think a lot of people know my half brother
previously operated this golf course for 42 years. And it was under a public/private type
partnership with the city which ---
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, excuse, Mr. Chairman, excuse me for interrupting but I need to
get a little clarification here. My colleague indicated to me some time ago that ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, could we just let him finish and then ---
Mr. Grantham: I said I would not vote on it but I’m providing information.
Mr. Mayor: Can we let him speak?
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to be difficult but it’s my understanding if you
have a conflict of interest you’re not even supposed to be in the room let alone be commentary
on it.
17
Mr. Grantham: Well, my brother’s deceased now. He hasn’t operated that golf course in
15 years since consolidation and prior to. So, Mr. Attorney, do I continue to have a ---
Mr. Mayor: Andrew?
Mr. Mackenzie: Well, a conflict of interest would have to be shown to be actual or
immediately anticipated. Based on the fact and circumstances that you indicated so far a
comment is fine as long as he doesn’t have an actual conflict. He’s already indicated he’s not
going to vote on this matter. So far I don’t see anything that would give rights to a violation of
the rules that you’ve adopted.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. I’ll continue then, Mr. Mayor. Under the circumstances
since the operation at that time was as I said under public/private partnership it did not cost the
city nor the county any funding or any support during the time of that operation. And we have
experienced now for a number of years it’s been operating as a government facility continuous
losses. And, therefore, I just think we need to look into going out and trying to get another
operator or putting out and RFP that would at least provide information as to whether someone
would be interested in running and operating it with some conditions attached to it. That’s my
only recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have, Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles:
My concerns are strictly financially driven. I think everybody wants to
keep the Patch open. It’s just how are we going to operate the day-to-day operations of the
Patch. For the four months of this year versus the four months of last year we have a decrease of
revenue of $10,000 and a $30,000 dollar increase of expenses. So we’re losing forty more
thousand dollars more this year then we did this time last year. Numerous occasions it’s been
indicated that there are free rounds of golf being given to employees. And there’s really no way
when the government’s running something to prevent that. They only way that I can see to
prevent that is have a professional management company run the day-to-day operations that
depend on the revenues to make their money. And I think we’ve seen this problem for the last
ten years with the Patch, revenues going up and coming back down and it’s not that you know
it’s dishonesty it’s just allowing friends and family to play for free. And I think that’s
So I would like to make a substitute motion that we approve
detrimental and the bottom line.
$40,000 in funding for the operation of the Patch through the end of 2010 while we go out
for an RFP to see what type of management firms can run the day-to-day operations to see
if it’s profitable or not.
And if it’s not then we’re back right where we are right now.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
18
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could, could we get Tom to come up? I got a
few questions I want to expound on it. Just kind of get some information as far as. Tom you
have heard the recommendation of the subcommittee in regards to this. And you and I have
talked briefly in regards to this matter. Of course it’s been my concern is the Patch you know
primarily had probably lost some revenue simply because of the economy first and foremost.
Second of all I’ve had some people call me talking about the conditions of the Patch. They do
love playing the Patch but of course the conditions wasn’t up to par or their expectations if you
will. And of course that’s been a problem. I also spoke with some of my colleagues in regards
to Forest Hills and how they have increased but they have spent extremely amount of money in
redoing their greens in kind of restructuring the course there. So of course they’re going to have
that increase in revenue. But from your perspective how do you figure this to work and do you
figure it to be a noble suggestion to go in and should it be a year trial basis to see how it works
with restructuring you know some things that the Patch in trying to get this back on course. I
mean can you just elaborate a little bit on it for me?
Mr. Beck: Sure, thank you for the opportunity to let me address a few things and the one
thing I would like to say is this recommendation is a staff level recommendation that went to the
subcommittee. But it is driven by the membership there at the course. Because this plan is based
on some new revenues coming in. So you know to even have a loss that would require forty
more thousand dollars for the end of 2010 it would still require the friends of the Patch or the
membership to step forward with the plan that you see in front of you for new revenues, new
members. A golf tournament is held by the Friends of the Patch Committee. You know all the
different sources of revenues that we’ve had on Adopt a Hole deals where there would be new
revenues for adopting holes and they would actually go out and get for us. So a lot of the new
revenue is based on the activity of the membership. Now you know how active the membership
would be if they’re thinking that they’re going to go out for you know for privatization you know
I really can’t answer that for the membership. You’d have to really ask them. But I want to
make that clear that this plan to succeed in the way that we’ve got it in front of you is based on
new revenues that are driven by a membership that is enthusiastic about the course. So I don’t
think there needs to be any gray area about that. We all need to be understanding that that would
be the case. You know as far as going out for privatization this issue came up three years ago.
We had an RFQ at that time. The Commission did vote not to go out for the RFQ. That wasn’t,
we had it ready it was actually in Purchasing there was a vote subsequently taken by the
Commission not to do that.
Mr. Bowles: Actually clarification on that as well.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: We had the RFP’s to open and the Commission then voted not to open what
the private companies said (inaudible).
Mr. Beck: We may have already gone out. I don’t recall. I know it never got to the
point of actually you know actually having any official, any records. So it, as far as the
document goes there is a document that could be updated if that’s the direction the Commission
19
wants to go to do that. You know I’ll just take a little point of privilege to say this. Some of the
comments that have been made we’ve operated the course for 14 years ever since consolidation.
We’ve, the course was given to us it was kind of out there in no mans land. Consolidation was
given to us to manage. Um, you know I think there’s been some improvements out there. Does
it have a ways to go? Sure it does. Some of those things are mentioned in the long-range
strategic plan about redoing greens to try to get maybe some increased value of the course.
That’s going to take money to do that. But there is a plan to move forward. You know that’s a
Commission decision you know which way you want to proceed there. We’re prepared for this
plan to move forward in the way that it’s presented.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know we’re talking about profits and
losses and if this is a private business. This is government. It is our responsibility as
Commissioners to insure that the quality of life of our citizens is taken care of. We have
Newman Tennis Center that comes out of the general fund. We have the Aquatic Center. And
we have many other recreation entities. In fact all of them is under the general fund except the
Patch. And, Mr. Mayor, if I may before we vote I would like for Finance to come up and tell us
what it is going to happen or what may happen on January 1, 2011 as far as the Patch and the
general fund if you will allow me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, while they’re on their way I know Commissioner Brigham had his,
we’ll hear from Don and then Commissioner Brigham I’ll get you too.
Ms. Williams: I’m not completely prepared to address that because I was not aware of
the recommendation before hand. I’m sorry if I should have been. The most notable change as
far as the financial presentation would that the depreciation expense that is charged against the
golf course would no longer be charged on their statements because the components of the
general fund do not incur depreciation. While that is not a cash outlay it is a financial statement
presentation expense and it does affect the bottom line. Also the transfer back to the general
fund for the administrative services for the indirect cost allocation which would be for the
overhead type expenditures, your prorata portion relating to payroll, finance, procurement,
administration, etcetera. That would no longer be a charge either. So those are the most two, the
two most notable changes that you would see on the financial statements if there was a move
back to the general fund. Does that ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, while it’s true that everybody up here supports I believe a
municipal golf course and we want to see that operated. I think the real debate is about how it’s
going to be operated, not whether or not we’re not going to have a municipal golf course. The
other thing while Mr. Lockett makes great effort to put this in the general fund every
Commissioner up here knows the general fund already has enough leaks and sieves where funds
are flowing out of it. We barely can balance a budget now without looking for a tax increase.
We don’t need to do that, I know that. I also know that we are faced with and I was hoping we
were going to get a complete financial picture not just throw it on the consent agenda at
20
committee. But that didn’t happen but I think we are already Mr. Russell was supposed to be
bringing back a recommendation whether or not we’re going to have layoffs this year. That’s on
account of the general fund and the revenue that it comes in. We were waiting for the last half of
the year for an administration recommendation on that. To just sink this back into the general
fund is not a cure. A cure is going to have to be whether or not we can increase revenue or we
can turn it over to somebody else to increase their revenue and take the burden of having a deficit
off of all of the taxpayers of Augusta Richmond County. Not just the ones that play golf.
Because when it gets around to adopting a budget we’re not going to talk about golf. We’re
going to talk about taxes and how it affects people. This is only just one small component of a
very large budget and I don’t think we need to put it in a separate, I don’t think we need to take it
out of a enterprise fund and put it into the general fund so it can get lost.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate Mr. Brigham’s comments but I have
two questions. I’ve got one for Tom Beck. You made a statement that uh, in ’96 or whatever
year it was we took over this golf course from I guess Mr. Grantham’s brother-in-law or
whomever. If was 14 years ago but you got it, it was just hanging out there. So was there, were
there issues prior to and then once we took it over it became progressively worse. Did we do, I
mean comparatively speaking what type of job has been done prior and then after we took it
over.
Mr. Beck: Historically speaking I think I’ll kind of give this answer. When it was
privatized for many, many years you know the course operated under a lease. When the lease
was terminated the city actually ran it as a separate department, the former city for probably
three years I’m going to say. Somewhere in that neighborhood. And so it was kind of out there
as separate entity. Nobody paid a lot of attention to it quite frankly and then in consolidation it
was recommended it come under Recreation and it did. For the first couple of years we worked
very hard on getting bonds that were issued. Actually Certificates of Participation, $2 million
dollars worth that were issued, paid back by a subsequent SPLOST that put two million into the
course, the club house, irrigation, new driving range, new maintenance facility. It really brought
it up to another level. So from the playability level you know it was much better because we put,
the city put some money into it finally. Back in those years golf was peaking. You know our
play was stronger. We, the course actually made money for several years. You know the course
probably in 2003 somewhere in that neighborhood is where the declines in revenue started to
come in and it has fluctuated up and down. But generally it’s been on a downward circle, or
cycle for several years now as far as the bottom line is concerned. The problem with the golf
course it’s a Catch-22. You got to spend money. You know fertilization, your labor to keep a
course up so you know if you take that away eventually that’s going to catch up with you and
you will have a drastic decrease in play if it goes down to that level. There’s been comments
made about the condition of the course. Maybe not being the greatest in the world but I think
those that are here will probably attest to the fact that it’s much better and has improved. And so
you know I would, I want to make sure and say that. Some of my staff are here and they work
very hard along those lines too. So that’s a little historical aspect but golf in general has been on
a decline you know in numbers in the last few years. I think we’re you know we’re getting some
of that you know here locally.
21
Mr. Mason: Okay, I’ve got a direct question for you and I’ve got a question for Mr.
Russell afterwards. You’ve heard the recommendation from the subcommittee. Are you in favor
of it or not ---
Mr. Beck: Again I think it’s a ---
Mr. Mason: --- as the Recreation and Parks Director.
Mr. Beck: --- what the plan you have in front of you is the plan I put together.
Mr. Mason: So you’re in favor? I just need for you to answer it. Are you in favor of this
plan you put together?
Mr. Beck: I believe with the help of our membership I believe this plan will work.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Can you speak to this issue please as the City Administrator? I think you’ve
been involved in the talks and those sorts of things. We’d like to hear from you.
Mr. Russell: Yes, I have and what you’re beginning today is a very interesting dialog
that’s going to continue over the next several months as we not only look at this issue but look at
the budget itself. And I think Commissioner Brigham is right. As we look at these things you’re
looking at the quality of life in our community and you’re looking for how to pay for those issues
there. The question becomes do you want to have a golf course and do you want us to run it. I
think the plan that is in front of you today gets us to that point. We have golf course for the next
six months and we run it. The bigger issue becomes a global issue of how you want to define
and how you want to talk about the services that we provide for the city. And that’s way beyond
where I’m at today and where I think anybody is. The task put in front of us or put in front of the
committee was to make a recommendation on two things I believe. And that’s how to maintain
services through the end of the year and then how to continue services thereafter. Tom I think
has put together a good plan with the caveat that people participate and that we continue to move
forward. I think this provides you reasonable golf in our city that people can afford. There are
increases in prices there are increases in issues there as we look forward at that. The issue
becomes in my mind a policy decision and you’re going to hear that word lot because that’s what
it is. Operationally I can make this plan work given the participation of the people here and
whatever. And with that amount of dollars we think we can do that. And I will make it happen.
The policy issue becomes do you want to move it into the general fund. And if you do that you
eliminate some of the exterior costs but Commissioner Brigham’s right again. Those costs are
not really, those costs go away but the price of operating the golf course is still there. We can
make this work. We’ve worked hard to put this together in a manner that can work. The
question I would ask each and every one of you is do you want us to.
22
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think we’ve adequately discussed this issue. I think everybody’s
had an opportunity to speak to it. We do have a substitute motion on the floor and, Madam
Clerk, it’s been a while since that was made. If you could please read that back for clarity.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to approve the additional funding in the amount of
$40,000 through the fiscal year 2010 for the operation of the golf course. To solicit an RFP for
the private management of the course for Commission review.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the
substitute sign of voting.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney, Mr. Grantham is not voting.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: What’s the difference in what we’re talking about now and the original
proposal?
Mr. Mayor: Okay and actually the vote has been called for. But it’s the, both proposals
call for moving the $40,000 to fund it through the end of the year. This one calls for going out
with the Request for Proposals for, to look at outside folks coming in to run it.
Mr. Hatney: So it’s contracted out.
Mr. Mayor: To go out for an RFP.
Mr. Hatney: But it remains like it is now for the rest of the year. Okay.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Mr. Grantham not voting.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I just want to clarify for everybody here that we’re going to fund the
operations of the golf course. We’re going to see what the private companies will run it for us
for. And if we don’t like it ---
Mr. Mayor: You don’t have to go into it.
Mr. Bowles: --- or if they can’t do any better we’re just going to continue to fund the
operations of the Patch so that’s the intent of that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
23
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I know the vote has been called for but let me speak on this.
Mr. Mayor: Point of personal privilege?
Mr. Johnson: Yes sir, thank you. I will say and I think you know, Joe, I understand you
made a good point there. But one of the key things I think we have to look at here and I know
Tom we talked about this as well briefly. We’ve got to get a plan established as far as how we’re
going to restructure this organization and make it work. And also we need to find out what is the
percentage of the increase that is needed to meet the goal. I think for the members there for the
city we need to make sure we go out and let people know we need participation we need more
people participating at the Patch. Of course the Patch needs a great deal of work. The greens is
not in the very best condition right now and it’s going to need some improvement. But it takes
money to do that we understand that and it’s the funds we truly do not have right now not really
to go into it. But we got to look at it a tentative plan on how to work at this for the next six
months and then hopefully we can see then whether or not it’s something we can continue to do
or if it’s even feasible to go out for the RFP. So I would encourage you all to do that the
members as well to go out and get somebody else and look here you know we need the
membership it’s not that bad. You can’t beat the price at that that you pay at the Patch and I
think this is just a great opportunity to go out and do that and get back in control of what we have
there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and, ya’ll, I’m going to have to cease conversation on this. We’ve got
several more agenda items that –
Mr. Lockett: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: --- okay, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I would like for Commissioner Bowles to restate that motion of his because
when he clarified a few minutes ago it was a little bit different than what he made before.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I had the Clerk read back the motion prior to it being
voted on so and the agenda item has been voted on and disposed of. So let’s ---
Mr. Hatney: Point of order, please.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, my problem is the statement he made and what she read and
what he said doesn’t balance. It’s not the same thing.
Mr. Mayor: Well, just for ---
Mr. Hatney: Let me finish now. I wouldn’t have voted yes if I had known the same
thing he said earlier. I would have voted no. I wouldn’t have.
24
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. Hatney: When you make a motion and then come around and make a different
statement at the end it changes the whole scope of things. I want to change my vote. I want to
change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, the agenda item has been voted on and disposed of. Unless
we can get ---
Mr. Hatney: It may be disposed of but you still have discussion on it.
Mr. Mayor: But it has, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Hatney: It may be disposed of but you’re still discussing it. I want to change my
vote.
Mr. MacKenzie: Based on the rules and procedures adopted by the Commission this item
has been voted on. You can reconsider it, which, I believe requires unanimous consent.
Mr. Mayor: If we have unanimous consent ---
Mr. Hatney: Not if I want to change my vote. Now if a discussion was made after the
vote was complete. Because the vote was completed and then there was further discussion. If
you can have further discussion on something that passed I have the authority to change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, I’ve got to go to the recommendation of the
Attorney.
Mr. Hatney: I want to change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: If we can get unanimous consent to reopen the agenda item.
Mr. Hatney: You didn’t get unanimous consent to further the discussion.
Mr. Mayor: But Reverend Hatney ---
Mr. Hatney: You can’t have it both ways now.
Mr. Mayor: But the vote was called for ---
Mr. Hatney: Don’t make no difference, you had further discussion once the vote was
taken so listening to further discussion I want to change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: But we have asked the Attorney. He has given his legal opinion on it.
25
Mr. Hatney: I do think that’s my privilege. I want to change my vote. If you can have
further discussion after something is voted on than I as a voting part of the body can change my
vote so I want to.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, that, for the point of clarity that’s why I had the
Clerk read back ---
Mr. Hatney: You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Mayor. If you can have
discussion after a vote than there can be a change of vote. And I want to change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: Andrew?
Mr. MacKenzie: If he’d like to table this item to either review the rules to see if there’s
any validity to that statement based on my understanding of that I’d like the opportunity to do
that. If you’d like to table this issue and come back to it I can give you ---
Mr. Mayor: How do we table it when it’s been disposed of?
Mr. Hatney: Can’t be disposed of as long as you’re still discussing it. If there can be
discussion after a motion you can’t tell me I can’t change my vote. That’s not true.
Mr. Mayor: But ---
Mr. MacKenzie: It’s my understanding that once a vote has been made the item has been
disposed of. To reconsider a make a new vote ---
Mr. Hatney: But there shouldn’t have been no further discussion, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: But I recognized ---
Mr. Hatney: There was a five minute discussion still going on ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes, but I recognized ---
Mr. Hatney: --- after the vote was taken ---
Mr. Mayor: --- for a point of personal privilege ---
Mr. Hatney: --- and I want to change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: --- to recognize Commissioner ---
Mr. Hatney: It was a point of personal privilege but there was some other discussion
made before I asked for that. You can’t do that after a vote’s taken.
Mr. Mayor: I ---
26
Mr. Hatney: You’ve got to make up your mind now.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, with all due respect ---
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I respect you too. I respect you too now. I respect you too.
When that motion was carried there shouldn’t have been no more discussion on it.
Mr. Mayor: But we have had the, when somebody asks for a point of personal privilege
okay but Madam Clerk let’s go on to and Mr. Attorney if you could just ---
Mr. Hatney: I want to change my vote, Mr. Attorney. My vote is no.
Mr. Grantham: Then, Mr. Mayor, the opportunity presents itself I’m going ask for
attorney privileges to give me the proper ruling that I can vote another.
Mr. Mayor: We, look we have got to move along here. We’ve got a lot of people here in
this audience.
Mr. Grantham: Well, let’s get into it.
Mr. Hatney: Well, let’s get into it then because I want to change my vote. I don’t care
how you do it. Makes me no difference I want to change my vote. You can’t discuss something
after it’s been disposed of and certainly I can change my vote.
Mr. Grantham: It’s a dead issue.
Mr. Hatney: It’s not a dead issue not if you’re still discussing.
Mr. Grantham: You’re in the wrong chair. You need to be down there.
Mr. Hatney: You need to make up your mind.
Mr. Mayor: Commission Hatney ---
Mr. Hatney: You need to make up your mind.
Mr. Mayor: --- will all due respect I’m going to call for the next agenda item. Based on
the legal opinion of the Attorney he will review it and he says ---
Mr. Hatney: But he didn’t.
Mr. Mayor: --- but I believe we have to go on the recommendation of the Attorney not
on the ---
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible).
27
Mr. Mayor: No sir ---
Mr. Hatney: --- he was sitting right there but the discussion went on after the vote was
taken.
Mr. Mayor: But he is the, the vote was called for a vote was taken and recorded by the
Clerk of Commission ---
Mr. Hatney: And ---
Mr. Mayor: --- and recorded.
Mr. Hatney: But there was discussion after that on the same issue.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: You can’t tell me I can’t change my vote now.
Mr. Mayor: Based on the recommendation ---
Mr. Hatney: We’ll be right here all night. Don’t tell me I can’t change my vote.
Mr. Mayor: I’m gonna call for the next item ---
Mr. Hatney: You can do anything you want.
Mr. Mayor: --- Madam Clerk.
Mr. Hatney: As long as you are from mixed differences of discussion to go on after a
motion a vote has been taken you can not tell me if I want to reconsider I can’t change my vote.
You can’t do that. You can’t have your cake and eat it. Now make up your mind.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, we are moving on.
Mr. Hatney: Let me just say this, Mr. Mayor. What I was voting for was, I was under
the impression that we were going to go along with the committee’s report here and have a
different review in next year.
Mr. Mayor: But, sir ---
Mr. Hatney: A different review that’s just what I was looking for.
Mr. Mayor: Please, can you just respect me to speak?
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
28
Mr. Mayor: I asked for the Clerk to read the motion and she read the motion. Madam
Clerk, could you read that motion back, please?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the additional $40,000 in funding for the
remainder of the year 2010 and to solicit an RFP for the operation and management of the golf
course for commission review.
Mr. Hatney: For commission review.
Mr. Mayor: For commission review, yes, sir. That is what she read, that is what you
voted on.
Mr. Hatney: But the course is not going to change.
Mr. Mayor: No, no not with the approval of the Commission. It has to come back to the
Commission.
Mr. Hatney: Well, I guess I acted crazy long enough then.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Item seven.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. It’s my understanding there’s several people in the
audience in reference to item #17 the renaming of Harrison Street. And that was done on the
consent agenda so that has been taken care of. If you’re here waiting ---
Mr. Mayor: Lord knows you didn’t have to sit here through all this! Ya’ll are good.
That was unanimously approved and well deserved. Thank you so much. Ya’ll go home and eat
some dinner.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we’ll take a 30 second recess or?
Mr. Mayor: As the, I’m just going to wait for the chambers to clear. Ya’ll just take a
deep breath. How about that?
Mr. Brigham: Is there anything we can be voting on or something or you know I don’t
want to be here at midnight if I can help it.
Mr. Mayor: No, ya’ll. That one took a while I know there’s some other hot topics on this
agenda but let’s handle them in high-minded fashion and do the business of the people. Okay.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
29
7. Z-10-31 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Nexsen Pruett LLC, on behalf of Winston H. Sibley
Jr., requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
that consists of a .23 acre prospective tower compound which is part of a tract that contains
104 acres located 536 feet, more or less, southwest of the southwest right-of-way line of
Richdale Road and being 237 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest right-of-way
line of Monte Carlo Drive. (Part of Tax Map 132-0-012-12-0) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Yeah, this is a location that’s actually on a large tract but it’s in the corner
where Cambridge and Pepperidge come together the back side of both these subdivisions come
together. And they want to build a 150 foot stealth tower, it’s an AT&T. They’ve got a void in
their service back there and this is the only location they can find to fill that void. They
submitted all the information showing that there aren’t other suitable structures in the area and
the applicant I’m sure is here to speak to it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, could we get the applicant and then I believe, yes sir. And if you
could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Speaker: We’ll do our best Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission
Jonathan Yates on behalf of AT&T. With me is my colleague Greg Knight, the Senior RF
Engineer for AT&T for this region. If I may, Madam Clerk, I’ll put a copy of my application
into the record. As planning staff and as planning commission found AT&T has a very severe
coverage deficit in the areas of the Pepperidge, Cambridge and Ridge Forest Neighborhoods.
We’ve been working for a number of years to try to find a solution to this problem. The problem
we have in these residential neighborhoods we’re unable to provide adequate voice and advanced
data coverage. In Augusta Richmond County today 20% of all residential homes are wireless
only. So this is an essential problem for us and one we’re trying to fill. We got lucky about this
time last year in that we found a piece of property owned by Mr. Winston H. Sibley. It originally
had been owned by he and his brother Alan who passed away a couple years ago. Mr. Sibley
gave us the perfect location to place this facility. He allowed us to place it in the corner of the
property so we could get all the coverage we needed into Pepperidge, Cambridge and Ridge
Forest. Working with George’s staff over the past six months he recommended and we agreed
on April 8 we went to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Pepperidge Neighborhood
Association. We met with the neighbors, talked about it and what we really did is we told them
we were going to do something a little bit different. We want to provide coverage into this
neighborhood, we got to provide coverage but we want to do something that looks a lot better.
What we came up with if I may and I’m sorry I hit the mike. Versus the standard cell tower this
is what we call a monopod. You have not seen one of these yet because this one is actually a
photograph of Oceanside California in Orange County California. This will be the first time that
AT&T has done this in the state of Georgia. We’re just completing one right now in Montreat,
North Carolina up in the mountains. And the key was this. The original, the original trees,
pardon my French but they look like toilet brush cleaners. It was just a long piece of pole, some
ugly looking branches on the top. What they’ve done with this tree is actually make the branches
30
work and use special synthetic UV material so it does not fall apart in the sun. And if you look
closely right here you’ll see where they’ve hidden the antenna. They take it a step further there
too what they do with the antenna is they pull a sock type device over it that also has UV
material. Why we selected this is the entire 700-acre Sibley property ---
Mr. Brigham: Can you turn that around so the people in the audience can see it? I think
you might want to show the other side too.
Mr. Yates: (inaudible) after we do this because every neighborhood’s going to want one.
Mr. Mayor: Vanna White on ---
Mr. Yates: She looks a lot better than I do, Mr. Mayor. I’m doing by best. The thinking
was AT&T had this coverage problem. We can not provide the service that we need to provide
to those good folks and we have a lot of customers. This came up repeatedly in the meetings
with Pepperidge, Cambridge. In addition I worked closely with Ms. Kaye Capese who is
president of Ridge Forest. We sent her all this information and tried to work with those folks
also. They want our coverage. And one thing I want to be very clear on. This isn’t just about
people taking on phones. That is the important thing. More importantly this is about a
community not being left behind. What we do with the phones and one statistic I want to give
you. In the U.S. today on a daily basis 300,000 911 calls come from a mobile phone. On an
average day that is 50-70% of all calls. In addition your patrol cars have a Mobile Data Terminal
that’s in them. They rely on this to get quick information prior to making arrests to see if they
need backup and to get our streets safer. But more importantly the mobile devices that are in
your EMS Teams. The EMS teams transporting patients to the hospital to the emergency room
are constantly sending vital medical information and electrocardiograms so when the patient
arrives you have that golden hour where the most treatment can be given. So when the patient
arrives the data is there and they can be treated correctly. We took a hard look at your
ordinances in designing this. We feel clearly we met all the criteria of the ordinance. Worked
through them one by one. Again what AT&T wanted to do in this case we wanted to get
coverage to these folks where they don’t have it now. We wanted to do it in the best possible
way. We were able it took us a while to work with the Sibley’s. They finally, they did agree to
let us do this. We looked at their property, 107 acres of trees, we designed a tree that looked just
like it. So if you’re driving down Monte Carlo you’re driving down Stanton all you’re going to
see is another tree where we can provide our coverage into that neighborhood. This will be ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Yates: --- most expensive facility ever built in the state of Georgia. I’m here I can
see I think my time ---
Mr. Mayor: Your time is up, yes, sir.
Mr. Yates: It takes me three to say my name so I apologize.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I try to be but in the interest of everybody’s time ---
31
Mr. Yates: And I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Mr. Yates: I’m here with me is Mr. Greg Knight who is our Senior Radio Frequency
Engineer ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Yates: --- he developed the site. We’re here for any and all questions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you do we have any questions.
Mr. Mason: (unintelligible)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: --- (unintelligible) pulled this time and it resides in the district, District 4.
Over the weekend we had some questions from some residents both in Pepperidge, Cambridge
and Ridge Forest in terms of the potential of radiation. I didn’t hear you address that issue and
can you address the issue of radiation and if there is any need to have any concern from that
standpoint.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, at this point I’d like to introduce Mr. Knight who is the
Radio Frequency Engineer and will address those concerns with your permission, sir.
Mr. Knight: My name is Greg Knight I’m an RF Engineer with AT&T. And there is no
concern for safety with respect to radiation from cell towers. The FCC limits us to a, forgive me
for getting technical but that’s what I do for a living. Field density of one milowatt per square
centimeter at the ground level that’s what the general public can be bombarded with. The
average cell tower will bombard you with less than one microwatt. That’s a thousand times less
than what the FCC declares is safe. Now to contrast with that the same limit is on your
microwave oven. If you’re two inches away from your microwave oven it’s the same limit that it
can give you. And according to Canadian research back in 2004 your average microwave oven
was putting out about 200 times more energy than our cell phones are and you’re not getting
harmed by either one of them.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor, I think we had a couple of folks that were objectors that came
down ---
Mr. Mayor: If we could have ---
Mr. Mason: --- that had some concerns.
32
Mr. Mayor: --- hear from a representative of the objectors. Do we have? And if you
could please state your name and address for the record, please, ma’am, and keep it to five
minutes as well.
Ms. Speaker: My name is Susie Pringle and I reside in Pepperidge, 2206 Ramblewood
Drive. I’m not representing anyone but myself but I have health concerns. And I’m asking you
just to wait until we do a little research because I mean it isn’t a populated area and um, it could
pose some health hazards. We haven’t had time to really do research on it to see what affect it
may have but that’s my main concern. What affect it may have on my health and anyone else’s
health.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Pringle: Since you’re placing it in our neighborhood how do you feel comfortable
placing it in your neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Pringle: And what other areas have you placed it in? Has it been established?
Mr. Speaker: We heard that he spoke to the community. We heard about this last month
and when we came back to the meeting this month and we heard that it I don’t’ know somebody
got a packet. I don’t know who the lady was that said she got a packet to look at. I guess from
you but we didn’t know anything about it and um, well our president evidently he didn’t get it.
Our residents are real or perceived threat it’s still a threat and you’ve got to address the people’s
concerns. And right now we don’t know what it is. I mean I have nothing against AT&T.
We’re a part of that. But I don’t this thing sitting in somebody’s back yard that is going to be
affecting people and ten years from now we find out that it did and it’s too late.
Ms. Pringle: With the rise of breast cancer, brain tumors and leukemia I have a right to
be concerned.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank ya’ll. Do we have any? Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question for them. I’d like to know your
synthetic tree. How does it fit in with all the other trees in the neighborhood? Is it going to be
because I’ve seen some towers that’s pretty tall. Are you going to have one real tall tree out
there?
Mr. Yates: We’ve worked with the topography with the Sibley property and it would
work very well because you have a little bit of a roll on that topography. Again it’s a big piece
of property Commissioner Lockett. It’s 107 acres starting down towards Butler Creek to the
north coming up and it’s going to look fine. It’s going to fit right in and if you’re driving along
you’re not going to see it. Again unfortunately I think our competitors are going to be a little
mad with us because I think this Commission that’s all they might want to see after they see this
one. But it is going to look fine. It’s going to look fine, sir.
33
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion can I get a motion on this?
Mr. Jackson: Move to approve.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will oh, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Well, it is with all due respect, Commissioner Mason, this is your district.
Do you have any concerns that you, have your concerns been answered?
Mr. Mason: Well, they haven’t been totally been answered because you can, you can um
---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: --- yeah, thank you. You can easily or go on the Internet and find out
information in that really kind of contradicts to some point what these gentlemen are saying here
now you know how valid that is I don’t know. I do know that Kay Capese, the one that you
spoke of sir um, I’m not sure why she told me on Saturday that she wasn’t totally comfortable
with it so that somewhat there’s a different story than what you’re presenting here today. Now
the unfortunate thing about it is none of them are here and I gave them the opportunity to be
here. And that’s unfortunate today. So we’re going to have to move on with the motion because
I made it very, very clear in my breakfast on Saturday that this the place to be if you want to, if
you want to address this issue that I would pull it and we did that. And but I don’t see anyone
else here to address this particular issue. I would like to ask though from the gentleman who
spoke initially the frequency manager or whomever it is that over there that can talk to this piece.
Um, putting a regular cell phone up to my head I’m having some radiation towards it, am I not?
Mr. Knight: Yes, sir, that’s correct.
Mr. Mason: What could be the difference because you talked about milowatts and these
types of things. What’s the difference between what you’re talking about as far as the synthetic
tree putting it out there and me constantly putting this cell phone up to my ear?
Mr. Knight: They’re measured in different standards. The cell phone is measured with
respect to a specific absorption rate. You’re looking at a small radiator and whether it’s going to
cause damage you know for a short period of time close to your head. Is it going to resonate
your brain, is it going to do something crazy. Whereas the cell tower you’re talking about
basically a continuous blanket of radiation and you know what is the point at which the human
body as a whole begins to suffer ill affects from that. And the point at which basically you
would get burned would be a field strength of 50 kilowatts per square centimeter. You put a
safety factor on top of that that’s huge fifty times. And so okay if you’re going to get hurt at fifty
we’re not going to let the general public see more than one milowatt per square centimeter.
34
That’s the limit the FCC puts on there. That has a huge safety margin and we’re not coming
anywhere close to that. We can go up to the milowatt legally but in general practice with every
carrier in the market on that tower we’ll never come anywhere close to that limit.
Mr. Mason: My last question for the other gentleman there that you mentioned that you
met with all three neighborhood association presidents?
th
Mr. Yates: Yes, sir. On April 8 I appeared before the Pepperidge Neighborhood. At
that point Ms. Capese actually added the Pepperidge Neighborhood at my invitation. On April
nd
22 we attended the Cambridge. In both cases we left business cards and I do at this point have
to thank the Cambridge Neighborhood Association because they not only met with us at
Gracewood but the served us dinner. So we have to thank ---
Mr. Mason: I don’t even get that.
Mr. Yates: --- them for a dad gum good dinner. I then followed up with Ms. Capese and
sent her a package for the Ridge Forest people. The most recent time I talked to her was the
Thursday before the Planning Commission. Just touching base again with her community.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: Well, to answer your question, Commissioner Johnson, I’ve given ample
opportunity for this community to be heard and um, I think we’ve had enough discussion on it
already. We’re just going to have to vote it up of vote in down. The opportunity was there and I
would hope that what the fact is we just need to vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Amen. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
8. Z-10-32 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the condition that there be no access to Crawfordville Drive; a
petition by Alex R. Monroe, on behalf of The Christian City of Praise, requesting a Special
Exception to establish a church, that was previously approved in 2004 (Z-04-30), per
Section 26-1 (A) of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property containing 24.62 acres and is known as 1510 Halton Road. (Tax Map
052-4-005-00-0). DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
35
Mr. Patty: This is a property that is located right on Dyess Parkway at Belair Road right
off Belair Road on Dyess Parkway. Access is from a street known as Halton Road, which is a
minor residential street. This church was actually approved in 2004 but they acted on it for
various reasons. And because of that the Special Exception expired and they had to reapply.
And they did and we went through this and we had objectors concerned about traffic flow on
Crawfordville Road or Drive or whatever it is. And as a result of that we approved it with a
condition that there would access to Crawfordville Drive which I thought satisfied the objectors
and hoped, continued to hope that it does and I don’t think there’s a problem with this because of
that. But the Planning Commission does recommend you approve with that condition.
Mr. Mayor: Okay can we hear from the petitioners?
Mr. Speaker: Yeah, my name is Alex Monroe and I’m a deacon in the church. We did
purchase it in 2004. I would say like most churches you would probably purchase your land and
then we didn’t anticipate that or didn’t have the knowledge then that it expired. We haven’t
changed what we planned to do with the property. It’s still basically as what it was back then
and we’re just asking to be reinstated or approved again for building a church in the community.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and we did have an objector?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I believe there’s some representatives and I’d like to hear from
one from Asbury and one from Halton Road.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear whether or not the opponent. I mean ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: --- the petitioner whether or not he is agreeable to the condition placed on
it that they will not have access to Halton Road. I don’t care who addresses it.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. If you could state your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Sonny Reese and I live at 2920 Henry Street in Augusta
Georgia and I’ve been employed by the church to represent them and assist them in some
construction. I have a, Ms. Bonner I have a portion of the GIS aerial map and you will see each
one of them I’ve highlighted. There’s a little yellow piece of property. It’s actually between
Crawfordville Drive and the church property. So there’s no way we’ll have access into
Crawfordville Drive anyway. Then I think it was just our mistake when we put out consensual
plan and it looked like it went right up Crawfordville Drive. But you can see that the little
yellow piece of property is known as 55-2 Parcel One at 3491 Crawfordville Drive and it’s
owned by Home Sites Limited. And there’s no way we can get in through there. And this is the
same request that Mr. Lloyd said that ya’ll approved in 2004.
36
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if we could hear from the representatives requested by Mr. Bowles.
Ms. Speaker: Good afternoon. My name is Lorie Bennett and I’m a resident of 3002
Winterville Court Augusta Georgia which is in the Asbury Hill Subdivision. We were just
coming for that issue. Because when we came to the last meeting it was noted that there will be
an additional entrance to the Crawfordville Drive exit. As he noted there’s really not room. I
went before I came to the meeting and I went and mapped it out. There’s approximately, less
than 30-feet of roadway between the two houses on Crawfordville Drive given that the average
car is about 5 ½ to 6-feet long two cars parked on the side only leaves you about 18-feet that is
not going to allow safe traffic flow. Again the concern of the Asbury Hill Subdivision resident’s
is that with an additional entrance for the church that means we’re going to have additional
traffic coming through the entranceway for our subdivision. This additional traffic of course is
not going to be desirable for our neighborhood. It’s not going to be safe for our children. Again
this also decreases the attractiveness of our neighborhood and detracts from our home value. So
we have significant concerns about this additional entrance being put in for the church. Lastly
the thing that we’re really concerned with I think this is going to lead to a sedge way into a future
development of a park in that area that we are vehemently opposed to. So we just wanted it
noted that we’re concerned about that additional entrance and really wanted it noted that we are
not in favor of that. As long as it stays on Halton Drive we’re fine.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Yes, sir.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, my name is Eric Lattimore and I’m also an official of the Asbury Hill
Neighborhood Association. I think, sir, the problem that we really have is not with you guys it’s
really along the Zoning and Planning Commission. We were not opposed to a church coming to
the neighborhood at all. I know I wasn’t and I didn’t hear from anybody in that area saying they
were opposed. The problem that we actually came into was later there were drawings being
circulated that actually what’s going to be placed back there. Now the guys of the homes that are
placed on Clarkston Drive we came to discover that this park supposedly that may or may not be
is going to be placed a few hundred feet from the back door of the homes that are wooded right
now. And they so deserve and enjoyed that scenery for years. Now we’re now under the
understanding that the park may be coming and there’s going to be a church complex. Okay, not
just a church but we weren’t privy to all this information. And we still aren’t we just don’t know
what’s going to be done and we don’t want to let this thing start to snowball becoming into a
huge logistical problem as far as traffic and noise concerned. Now we’re dealing with the roads
that’s placed on Dyess Parkway and the traffic on Belair Road is a nightmare and I don’t even
want to go into trying to get off of Belair Road onto Wrightsboro Road in the morning going to
work and then during the holidays just plain forget it. Okay, we’ve had problems with trash,
drugs, beer cans everything and nothing’s being done about it. If it wasn’t for some of these
neighborhood associations getting out from time to time and cleaning it up we’d have a mess.
And these are very nice homes. We’re just opposed to anything else larger coming to that area.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Are there any, George, are there any height restrictions or zoning buffers
that we addressed?
37
Mr. Patty: Yeah, there would be a buffer. It would be a 10-foot buffer on the side and
twenty on the back. As far as height restrictions on the church I believe that they height in the
zone would be, would dictate the height of the church which would be 35-feet or 2 ½ stories in
this case.
Mr. Lattimore: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Lattimore: The problem is not with the church at all and I want to reiterate on that.
We’re not opposed to the church at all it’s just the other things we got a hold of, that we’ve seen
that are going to be coming along with the church that we don’t know about.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. And I believe there’s another lady that would like to
speak. And if you could ---
Mr. Monroe: If I could just say something before she speaks. In 2004 we did agree to
some things through Planning. One was that buffer had been extended up to a 45-foot buffer. I
mean it’s still the same. We didn’t request anything different. So there will be a visual buffer in
between the communities.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ma’am, if you could state your name and address for the record and
please keep it to five minutes as well.
Ms. Speaker: My name is Carol Hobbs and I live at 1506 Halton Road. And that’s the
road they’re talking about that’s going to be coming through. And I live probably about 40 feet
from that entrance where that road’s coming through. And I object because there’s a lot of kids
that play in the neighborhood. They ride bicycles and like Mr. Eric said there’s lot of trash
people coming in throw out. And there’s all kinds of people that come in there and park too at
night you know and do all sorts of things. And I’m afraid if they open that road there’s five
house on the road. I’m in the middle. There’s one on the corner that object, there’s one next to it
that objected, me and the one next door to me objects to you know where it’s going to be opened.
But I couldn’t get any of them to come today. They all said they had to work so I said I’ll go.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am.
Ms. Hobbs: So I object to it. I don’t object to the church at all.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some clarification because I’m
hearing a couple of different things. I’m hearing about the access or the roadway and then I’m
hearing about a park. I keep hearing about that. What are we talking about here?
Mr. Mayor: I would ask the same question. Who’s proposing to develop a park?
38
Mr. Speaker: We would deal with Mr. Beck on that.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We have as you are aware have
been looking at property out in the Belair Road area for quite some time. And we have been in
discussions with the church regarding purchasing part of that parcel for future recreation out
there. There’s been and that’s all it is at this point we had discussions with the church. We do
have an option with them on the property should it move forward. I spoke to the neighborhood
association this last Thursday night and gave them some information. That’s all it was right now
and that if anything moved forward that we would certainly move forward with public hearings
you know regarding the park. There’s been petitions that’s been circulated now regarding in
favor or not in favor of parks out in that area. So that will give you a little update about the park
status.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Yates: Sir, once again I’m sorry, sir. I think (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: With recreation ---
Mr. Mayor: And, ma’am, your name and address is?
Ms. Speaker: I am Leatrice Lattimore, 3493 Crawfordville Drive also.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Lattimore: The hidden agenda with the church, a park, that was not on this special
exception. We do not want a park there. We have two parks in our area. We have Belair State
Park that needs development. We have Sue Reynolds Community Center. Nothing goes on
there. Those are parks that can be developed. What Tom Beck presented to us last week he says
there’s money to purchase the land for the park. No money to develop the park. So you’re going
to have blank land there. Twelve acres. When the Pastor of Christian City appraised spoke to us
two weeks ago he said that they had already sold the property to the recreation department. And
there’s a map that Tom Beck presented to us that they had drawn up already with how they’re
going to purchase the land. There’s a multipurpose building that’s planned behind our
neighborhood, right against our property. And then to come through these neighborhoods for
park there’s Dyess Parkway there come off Dyess Parkway off the church plans to build there.
There’s an entrance there instead of coming through the neighborhood clogging up Belair Road,
clogging up Crawfordville Drive, clogging up Halton Drive. If a funeral comes there our road
will be at a standstill. Dyess Parkway is better. And then the hidden agenda, that’s a big
problem. They’re planning a park that the neighbors were not aware of. We did not receive
letters, the pastor didn’t come talk to us about that event the four years ago. We didn’t get that
information. Now here we go we stand in our hall and left messages and talked to a few of you
today. I left message I know ya’ll. But that’s the problem we have.
39
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Lattimore: We don’t want a park.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, in defense ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: --- of Parks and Recreation saying it’s a hidden agenda we would be foolish
as a government to go out and publicize we’re looking for land in a particular area because the
price would skyrocket. And that’s why we get an option on the land then come to the
community and then decide whether, we have an option, we got the option what two weeks ago
maybe?
Mr. Mayor: Okay ---
Mr. Bowles: That’s the same ---
Ms. Lattimore: --- documentation of 2009.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, are we having a discussion on a park?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, okay, and I think we’ve had ample time to hear
from either side on this to hear from the objectors and to hear from the petitioners.
Mr. Brigham: I just have a question ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: --- for Mr. Patty. I want to know if all the setbacks with the original
application apply to this on this Special Exception.
Mr. Patty: Well, the gentleman did mention a 45-foot setback on that side toward
Crawfordville and that is not a condition of zoning. That did not come up at the meeting and we
did not oppose the special setback.
Mr. Brigham: Have you got a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: There’s not a motion.
Mr. Brigham: I make a motion that we approve it with the setbacks that were in the
original motion in 2004 and that there will be no access to Crawfordville Road on the plans
that are presented to us.
40
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: The 45-foot buffer was not a condition of the 2004 Special Exception. I can
tell you that.
Mr. Brigham: Somebody seemed to think it was.
Mr. Patty: It wasn’t. I’m telling you it wasn’t.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s, Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I don’t know what we’re voting on again. I don’t want to change my vote
again now.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk ---
Mr. Hatney: I’m sorry I’m not trying to be different, difficult but I don’t know what
we’re talking about. We started out talking about a church now all of a sudden there’s a church
and park. What are we going to be voting on?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting on the zoning of the property the church is proposing to go on.
There’s no and, Madam Clerk, if you could read that back just to, the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the petition for the Special Exception and that the
setback will be as in the original approval in 2004 with no access to Crawfordville Road.
Mr. Hatney: Is that what you’re ---
Mr. Grantham: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Is that?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Representative, is that what you’re talking about?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, he may know of the ordnance code better than me.
Mr. Hatney: We’re not talking about that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: The motion is that what you’re looking for?
41
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Ms. Speaker: Excuse me, can I ---
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, I’m sorry we recognized both sides and the vote has been called for
and seconded.
Mr. Mason votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
18. Motion to authorize elimination of Assistant Director position in the Utilities
Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 7, 2010)
Mr. Wiedmeier: Mr. Mayor and Commission, when I began as Utilities Director in
December of last year I began to review the organization and structure as well as the changing
landscape for the department. Particularly we’re on the tail end of a $400 dollar million capital
improvements program. It is my opinion that with the winding down of the construction that I
have the opportunity to eliminate one of my six assistant director positions and that’s what I’m
asking for authorization to do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: I pulled this item, Mr. Mayor, so you can kind of come this way.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: All right, we appreciate that statement there, Mr. Director. I’ve got a
question here in reference to this position. And the question that I have for you right now is, is
the individual authorized retirement today without making this move?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes, he is eligible to take early retirement. This move would allow him
to receive full benefits when he retires.
Mr. Mason: When you say full benefits can you be a little bit more specific in terms of
what his pay may be versus what it would have been and so forth.
42
Mr. Wiedmeier: I think it means a 25% increase in his retirement benefit. Now this
retirement benefit does not come out of our budget or the city. This is in the 1949 Pension Plan.
So it would it really makes no difference to our budget.
Mr. Mason:
And I understand it makes no difference to our budget but it does make a
difference in my mind to whether or not at this particular time this is something that we should
move forward with. I’m of the opinion I’m very troubled with the timing number one of this
particular request given the fact of the number of things that even yourself have admitted to that
have gone on out in our utilities department. And so I find it difficult to potentially reward what
may be a situation to where we’ve had someone um, perhaps maybe not acted in the manner that
should have been from a utilities director. So at this point I’m real, I have some real problems in
moving this forward right now. I’m not saying I’m totally against it but I think at this point
given a number of the not only the allegations and accusations but the flat out admission of guilt
by many in the utilities department. So in my mind it would be counterproductive for this
government who have been talking about holding up standards and doing the right thing in
I’m going to make the
setting the tone. I’m not saying that this won’t happen at some point but
motion that we rescind this requestfor elimination of this particular position until further
notice.
I do believe that we need to look very, very closely into the utilities department and what
has gone on there given the fact to where we are and issues that are at hand even as we speak just
to be on the safe side in doing what’s best for this government to make sure that we are not
rewarding anyone for bad behavior. And I’m not saying there’s been any but I’m saying we
need to do our due diligence to ensure that we’ve done all that we can do to make sure that this is
in the best interest of this government. I’m going to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Johnson: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe we’re getting into a very difficult place where we are
here with the subject that’s being talked about. And I don’t think this is something we should be
talking about necessarily out here. But I do believe that this is a motion that we done with other
people. I also think it’s very appropriate and therefore I think we need to make a motion to
authorize this position to be eliminated. I think that is in the best interest ---
Mr. Mayor: A substitute motion?
Mr. Brigham: --- a substitute motion and I make it we authorize this position to be
eliminated.
Mr. Smith: Second.
43
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, this is probably a question for Fred. Is the part of the early
retirement package that was presented to us back in November/December that was passed?
Mr. Russell: No, this is separate and distinct from that. As you’ll find ---
Mr. Bowles: How does it mirror that early retirement compared to what we’re being
offered here. Is it pretty much the same basically?
Mr. Russell: Pretty much I think. I think it’s accurate. That would be an accurate
statement. What you’re going to see is as we continue to move forward the utilities department
not withstanding as we continue to look at trying to downsize and do that you’re going to see
more of these kinds of opportunities to move people out from work as we continue to cut
structure. So that’s the first of many hopefully.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, also in regards to this retirement. I know
Commissioner Bowles touched on this but what is exactly the difference in this particular
retirement plan versus or severance, whatever you want to call it versus anybody else that may
be doing it or have done it recently. Is it any extra special privileges are far as benefits or
anything like that?
Mr. Russell: I’m not really qualified to speak to that at any great extent be honest with
you. But as you know each of the plans has different opportunities there. It’s my understanding
the 49 Plan is set up as such that if you do eliminate the job as we’re attempting to do in this
particular situation it does qualify you for an enhanced benefit as opposed to being just let go at
this particular point in time. But I think that’s the issue that you’re looking at. And that’s plan
specific I believe that the 49 Plan does that and where the 77 Plan did not do that so we had that
other issue but does not do that to my understanding.
Mr. Johnson: So when you say enhanced as far as the position being eliminated what are
some of those enhancements?
Mr. Russell: It would allow him to collect the full retirement it’s my understanding as
opposed to early retirement as a reduction of benefits that would be allowed to him. So I think
Tom’s statement about 25% I believe is what he said in addition above and beyond what would
happen if just did early retirement. The savings to the government is similar to what we used in
the enhanced retirement as we tried to do is that we try to move these people off the payroll and
move them into a retirement system. And that’s a policy decision that we made in one case or
made as we looked at the early retirement and in this case as an individual decision that we’re
asking.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney then Commissioner Lockett.
44
Mr. Hatney: The only question I want to ask is in the early retirement was there going to
be a 25% buffer?
Mr. Russell: Let me ask Rod that question.
Mr. Hatney: You said they’re were going to be the same if there’s going to be, if this is a
25% buffer or not?
Mr. Russell: I don’t think it was. I mean wasn’t.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wiedmeier, I think I asked you at the last
meeting whether or not this consolidation of departments was designed to help a particular
individual. And I believe you told me that indeed it had. What kind of precedent are we
establishing here?
Mr. Wiedmeier: I believe that I said that this move would be good for our department
and also good for the individual.
Mr. Lockett: Well, then, if I may follow up. Why is it good for the department?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Because our workload going forward with the winding down of the
construction I don’t need six assistant directors. I can manage the work with five.
Mr. Lockett: Well is it that he’s just so lucky?
Mr. Wiedmeier: I would, it would be tough to do to eliminate the job of a 28-year
employee and if it was against their will and they had been doing a good job.
Mr. Lockett: You consider the job as being a good job done?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes, I do.
Mr. Lockett: Okay. I would like to, Mr. Mayor, if I may is ask Mr. Powell to tell us
exactly what he’d be entitled to by this special deal as opposed to what he would be retired if he
just had regular retirement.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell: Good evening, Rod Powell H.R. Director.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett, if you want to ask him.
45
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Powell, my question is this. What would this young man be entitled to
if he retired just under regular retirement as opposed to the sweetheart deal that we’re offering
him now.
Mr. Powell: You have my ear.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we’re fixing to open ourselves up ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, hang on. And I would, Mr. Attorney, if you would just please
we’re starting to get into personnel. It should not be discussed in the public forum. I would
request that you would give us that advice and tell us we were hitting that boundary please.
Mr. Brigham: I wouldn’t mind discussing it as long as we leave off the editorial
comments.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell: The answer is he would have a 30% penalty in his retirement if he left now
without his position being abolished. So that’s the difference. He would get no additional credit,
he just wouldn’t have a penalty. So when you’re job is abolished you eliminate the penalty and
that’s basically it. And the amount is 30%, he’s five years away right now from a full normal
regular retirement so the percentage is 30% in total approximately.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: I’m not like I said I’m not opposed and I know we’ve done these actions
before. It doesn’t necessarily make them right but I’m troubled by the timing and the perception
that is associated with this request. This is not a mandated request, this is a simple request. So
it’s not something that has to happen immediately right now as we speak. So my concern was
that we do our due diligence like we try to do in everything else and ensure that if we’re going to
give incentives to anyone be it the interim utilities director or anybody else that we do our due
diligence to ensure that we’re doing the right thing. We can skirt around this issue all day while
we’re sitting here. But the commissioners up here on this stage understand that we have some
potential problems out there. And we need to address all of the problems appropriately. We can
not, we seem to be picking and choosing. Just a minute ago we had some recommendations
from the director and from the city administrator and commissioners chose not to accept that.
But now we want to say let’s accept the recommendation that we have here. You can’t have it
both ways. I mean when are we going to sit down and be consistent with our actions up here. So
I’m simply saying that in that we need to have a discussion in reference to what’s going on to
ensure that we are doing the right thing with this type of action. I’m not saying that it won’t
happen but I don’t feel that this is the appropriate time to make this a perception of this. It
stinks. The timing stinks and with what else we’ve got going on right now and we can try to
sugar coat this all we want to there’s a problem somewhere. And so we need to address that
problem appropriately. And I think this is a part of addressing our bigger issues appropriately to
ensure a fairness is going on up here in the government. So that’s my statement for bringing it
out not and that’s it.
46
Mr. Mayor: Okay and understand that. Okay, if there’s no further discussion we have a
substitute motion on the floor. Madam Clerk, for clarity if you could read back the substitute
motion.
The Clerk: The substitute motion is to authorize the elimination of the assistant director’s
position in the utilities department.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
The Clerk: It’s a tie, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Based on the input of the Mayor Pro Tem and I do agree we need to be fair I
will vote no as well.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, we have a primary motion.
Mr. Brigham: Question on the primary motion.
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Brigham: If we approve the primary motion which is not to abolish this position then
are we going to fill this position or is position going to remain vacant? He hadn’t retired. He’s
not going to retire unless he gets early retirement to get the benefits so I’m asking what’s going
to happen.
Mr. Russell: If I can, Mr. Mayor, the position’s currently filled. We’re trying to abolish
the position.
Mr. Brigham: Are we going to appoint (unintelligible)
Mr. Mayor: He stays in the position.
Mr. Russell: If we don’t abolish the position, this position remains full and he’s still in
there.
Mr. Brigham: If he retires what’s going to happen? Is it going to be abolished or not?
Mr. Russell: If he decides to take early retirement I believe we’d come back to you with
another recommendation.
Mr. Brigham: If we do that, are we setting ourselves up for a problem?
47
Mr. Russell: I didn’t hear your comment, sir.
Mr. Brigham: I’ll ask it later.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, there’s a primary motion on the floor. If you could
read that back for the point of clarity.
The Clerk: The original motion was ---
Mr. Hatney: Point of order. Point of order, Mr. Mayor. The motion was to deny the
approval of the motion brought forward. And it’s been, this has already been taken care of so
there’s no primary motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, there is.
Mr. Hatney: How can there be?
The Clerk: There were two motions.
Mr. Mayor: When there ---
The Clerk: The original motion was not to approve the, not to authorize the elimination
of the assistant director’s position in the utilities until further notice. Mr. Brigham made a
substitute motion to authorize it. Eighteen is just a summarization putting it in motion form. It’s
not ---
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion’s been defeated. Now we have the primary motion
that we need to vote on.
The Clerk: Right.
Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, for the sake of clarity the primary motion would be?
The Clerk: Not to authorize the elimination of the assistant director’s position until
further notice.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Mason: Not what you see on the screen.
Mr. Hatney: What you see on the screen has been already ---
Mr. Lockett: Oh, just the garb what I see on the screen?
The Clerk: No, sir.
48
Mr. Mayor: No.
Mr. Lockett: The screen says authorize.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the agenda item. The motion is to not authorize the elimination of the
assistant director’s position in the utilities department.
The Clerk: What I say, not what you see.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners, whoa, I need a vacation after this one. Commissioners will
now vote by the usual sign of voting.
The Clerk: That motion fails 5-5 with Mr. Aitken ---
Mr. Mayor: No, it doesn’t fail it’s 5-5 I get to vote again.
The Clerk: Well, right now. Well, what you vote then we’ll know if it fails or not.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
The Clerk: Now Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Watch this, ya’ll.
The Clerk: Okay, the motion carries with the Mayor voting yes.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS
25. Motion to approve the attached list dated June 3, 2010 of Augusta-Richmond County
Legislative appointments to various ARC Boards, Commissions and Authorities.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken, this was your pull.
Mr. Aitken: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all I want it clear that I am not opposed
of any of the appointments that have been recommended to us. What I need some clarity on is
our Ordinance 62-01, which I have reviewed. And it prohibits any persons to more than one
board. Right now with the slate of candidates before us we’re going to have two people on two
different boards so they’re going to able to represent our city in that way. So I think somewhere
in our wording of Ordinance 62-01, let me read the start of this ordinance. The ordinance is
admitted Title One Chapter Four of Augusta Richmond County Code Entitled Boards and
49
Authorities so to prohibit memberships on multiple boards to provide quality members to
provide removal to attend meetings to repeal conflict of ordinance to provide effective dates and
other procedures. So I think what I’m having a problem with is we’re allowing multiple board
appointments right now but our ordinances says that we can’t do that. So I just need some clarity
on where we’re going with this and how do we do that. I don’t know if the Attorney can give me
some counsel on that or the Administrator to help us with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I believe you stated the rule correctly. It wasn’t always that way. I
believe the rule as been amended to prevent multiple appointments on multiple boards. So you
probably need to reconsider the appointments that you have considered on the list to ensure that
that doesn’t occur in this instance.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney and I’ll come back to you. Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: A question, Mr. Attorney, please. I think the last time we talked about this
we were saying that that particular thing that was before the Commission not for the legislative
body.
Mr. Mackenzie: I’ll have to look ---
Mr. Hatney: This ain’t the first time we’ve had this discussion. This is not the first time
we had this discussion we recently had this discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a time factor on these appointments or can we forward this on to the
next Commission meeting so that we can clarify through legal counsel that ---
Mr. Hatney: My concern here is that we’ve been told by legal counsel that this particular
appointment system has to do with the Commission only. We had nothing to do with state
appointments.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’ll be happy to look at it and get back to you on it.
Mr. Hatney: But now we’ve talked about this so how are we going to look at it again?
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m not looking at it right now. I’ll be happy to ---
Mr. Hatney: But do you understand what I’m saying. We’ve talked about we had this
discussion recently.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Hatney: That’s all I’m saying and I’m not being funny. We’ve had this discussion
recently and it was told us that we had noting to do with state appointments that the Commission
can’t put two folk on two different, the same person on two different appointments.
50
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Hatney: That was told to us.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Richmond County ordinance says we can’t put them on this so I’m just
wondering who’s are these? Are these the state’s legislature or are these the Richmond County
Boards? So somewhere we have to have clarity. We got to show some leadership to say this is
what we need to do because we don’t want to, I just want to see protocol done in the way that we
need to do it in this government. That’s my same policy. It’s not any personalities and if we’re
going to get our house in order these are the things we’re going to have to do so we don’t hear
rumblings in our community, especially when we have to power to help correct those. If that
means sitting down with our legislative body to see how we do that to work it out then that’s
what we need to do. And this is just a starting point. What we came up with at our Commission
retreat and how we’re going to start looking at our boards and how they’re functioning and how
they report to us as well as the process of that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles and then Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. Bowles:
I feel that if I’m sitting here and I’ve got to vote whether or not to appoint
I’m just going to make a motion that we forward
these people I’m kind of appointing them so
this to the next Commission meeting
until we can get a better ruling from our attorney.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. And if you’d like to tie this one up as
well I’d be happy to break that tie too.
Mr. Brigham: Three is not the charm.
Mr. Hatney: You can’t vote no more!
Mr. Mayor: Ah man, ya’ll spoil me.
Mr. Hatney: We’ve got to reign you back in.
Mr. Mayor: And I think that’s why it got ten votes.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: Item 26?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
51
The Clerk:
PLANNING
26. Z-10-35 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Pillon Communities requesting a Special Exception to
establish a sales office in a model home in Spirit Point Subdivision per Section 8-2 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
containing .30 acres and known as 1019 Patriot Drive. (Tax Map 215-0-246-00-0)
DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is a subdivision known as Spirit Point out on Browns Road near
Highway 56. And it’s a subdivision that was started in the 1990’s I think early 1990’s and
approximately twenty or thirty homes were built in the subdivision and then construction stopped
with the economy. And the group has bought the remaining undeveloped lots I believe it’s 53
lots and want to build houses on those lots, some of which are already platted and located on
existing streets. And they want to establish a model home in that area that they would use as a
sales office until such time it’s no longer needed. And we had some objectors to that. At one
point the ordinance says that sales offices were permitted by Special Exception in new
subdivision and the question is, is this a new subdivision? And the other point they made I think
is and I think what’s driving this frankly is that they think that construction is going to be inferior
to the construction of their homes. And applicant’s are here and probably the objectors are here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if we can hear from the applicant’s and then we’ll hear from the
objectors.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Chris Bartow. I am at 522 Sandringham Drive in Alpharetta
Georgia. We’d like to establish a spec home, model sales center in this neighborhood to sell our
homes. The homes in the area now that we’re going to be constructing are a minimum of 2500
square feet and they’re going to go up to 4300 square feet. We currently have one pending sale
in the community at $250,000. The average sales price in the community or list price of our
homes is in the 190’s. The current homes that are in the community closing wise have closed for
an average of $187,605. So our houses are listed above prices of the current close values of the
homes. And all that we’re asking is that you permit us to establish a place to conduct business
during normal business hours like it’s being done across Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. And can we hear from somebody representing the
objectors? And if you could state your name and address for the record too, please, sir.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Charles Stevens and I live at 1438 Commonwealth Way out in
Spirit Point. And where they’re trying to build a model home it’s right at the front entrance.
Right? It’s no parking, no right of way. You know if you’ve got a sales office out there it’s no
parking for people to come in there. You can’t conduct business there in a proper way. If you’re
parking on the street and anybody’s business in Spirit Point the streets are only so big. So if
52
you’re going to have people parking on East Way then you are setting up a safety hazard. So
that is one of the concerns that we have in the neighborhood. It’s not about them building houses
there it’s the safety of the people that’s coming in and out that community. Right because a
number of cars that came in there and unable to pass because you had sales people and
construction people blocking the right of way. No way to get around so that is one of our
concerns.
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon. My name is Calvin Morrow and the last time the
Planning Commission on last week presenting a petition of 22 homewoners of the thirty-two that
are present are opposed to a sales office. Again we believe it doesn’t meet the ordinance
specially says a sales office in a new subdivision. We’re talking about a 15-year old subdivision
and with the state of the economy the way it is everybody’s appraised value is going down and
this an additional factor that we don’t need to depreciate our property. What we’re talking about
is Pillon Communities bringing in a $185,000 dollar vinyl siding home in a $300,000 dollar
subdivision. And so we just have a concern that if they can just operate without a sales office as
other agencies that have open houses as needed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any questions for the? Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Did you say the homeowners had twenty-two against it? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What’s the price range in those houses in the
neighborhood now?
Mr. Morrow: I would say it ranges the appraised value is around 200 to almost $400,000
dollars. And so the numbers that the gentleman quoted earlier are for houses that are up to 10-15
years old so I don’t think it’s fair to compare apples and oranges as far his comparative market
analysis as he’s attempting to do.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: That seems to be most all of the people that live there that are rejecting it.
All right I’m going to move that we reject it.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Bowles: I’ve got a question ---
Mr. Mayor: Um, Commissioner Bowles then Commissioner Brigham.
53
Mr. Bowles: Is this a new, not another existing home but is this an expanding
subdivision or what’s going on out there is what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t know if George
wants to address that.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, let’s have the neutral party. Let’s have Mr. Patty address it.
Mr. Patty: Like I say it’s a subdivision it was, I think in 1993 and about twenty-two
homes were built the construction stopped. And just recently this group has bought the
remaining lots, I think there are fifty-three remaining that they bought. And they started
construction and so I guess the question is, is it a new subdivision or isn’t it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Brigham then Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Brigham: George, while you’re up there this is a new section. Is it a different
section than before or is it?
Mr. Patty: The lots, there are existing homes intermingled with these lots.
Mr. Brigham: Okay that’s question number one. Number two can you address the safety
concerns about the width of the street and the cars on there and how? I need to understand that if
I expected to accept that as premise for not voting for this.
Mr. Patty: These are typical subdivision streets. Now I think you know in fairness to the
neighbors what you see when this group comes in is a lot of activity. They work 24/7 building
houses and there’s a lot of construction activity and a lot of other activity. As far as the sales
office I mean I can’t imagine them having more than two or three clients at one time in the sales
office. But the reality is there’s a lot of activity associated with the development in this
subdivision.
Mr. Brigham: Are they asking for anything different than what we’ve already approved
in other neighborhoods for sales offices?
Mr. Patty: No.
Mr. Brigham: So and the streets are the same width as most common neighborhoods in
this county? Are they narrower or are they the common width or what?
Mr. Patty: I’m going to have to check. I think these are public streets. If they are then
they’re 31-feet back to curb back to curb. I’m going to have to check but I believe that they’re
public streets.
Mr. Brigham: Can you find that out for me?
Mr. Patty: I will.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham, were you going to ask Mr. Patty something?
54
Mr. Grantham: That was poorly given. George, okay, one of my questions was in
regards to the street and has the government accepted that subdivision with the streets under the
public situation.
Mr. Patty: I’m going to have to check to see if they are.
Mr. Grantham: Okay, all right. The second question that I have is the real problem, to
me it seems the real problem is the location of the sales office. I mean that’s what I heard you
know a couple people say right now. Well can there be some compromise as to where a sales
office is located to where you can continue to do what you want to do with the remaining 53 lots
and satisfy these residents based on you know if houses are already intermingled within your
property then why can’t we get you to put that sales office in another location with direction to
that place.
Mr. Bartow: What we’ve been able to do is it’s not the first home in the community
when you’re pulling in. It’s actually it sits back quite a bit. And we’ve actually gone to the
expense because we knew parking was going to be a concern to side-load the garage onto the
house so it would have an appearance of a normal spec home. Just like a house that was built in
any other community. I actually poured an extra long driveway on that house to allow for
parking. So you know we’re getting an average of two to three units of traffic out there a week.
I think that’s fair of new people coming in to look for new homes. So it’s not a concern with the
sales office and the parking. The traffic out there doesn’t warrant that for new customers if that’s
what the residents are concerned about. And again we’ve gone through the extra expense of
pouring an extra long driveway so the cars aren’t parked in the road. They’ve been parked in the
road, the agent’s car has been parked in the road because we’ve had a problem with a pipe that
was going to go underneath the driveway and we haven’t been able to pour it. That’s the only
reason that they’re parked out there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Hatney then Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Hatney: Two questions sir. One is where are, what are you using now as a sales
office?
Mr. Bartow: Her car.
Mr. Hatney: What?
Mr. Bartow: It’s her car. We’re basically parked out in front of the sales center until ---
Mr. Hatney: You’ve got a sales center? You do already have a sales center?
Mr. Bartow: We have a model or a spec home being built on that site and we have the
garage converted into an office but we cannot occupy that office.
Mr. Hatney: You already built some without approval?
55
Mr. Bartow: Well, we built the spec home just like a normal spec home.
Mr. Hatney: But you didn’t answer my question, sir. You built something already
without approval.
Mr. Bartow: We had proper permits to build that yes, yes we have.
Mr. Hatney: Another question I have. Why wouldn’t you simply just build a house ---
Mr. Bartow: We did.
Mr. Hatney: --- that you would sell and use that as your office until all the other ---
Mr. Bartow: That’s what we’re doing. That’s all we’re doing.
Mr. Hatney: But then you picked the wrong spot evidently.
Mr. Bartow: Well, it’s ---
Mr. Hatney: It looks like you picked the wrong, looked like you picked the wrong spot
though, sir. If the whole community’s against it, it looks like you just picked the wrong spot.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I think one thing that’s troubling the residents is there are some very nice,
expensive homes in there.
Mr. Speaker: That’s right.
Mr. Smith: And they are and I think that this company came out and put a large sign in
front of the entrance about S160,000 or something to that nature. And it has upset the residents
of thinking that they’re going to get much smaller homes than what they had planned to do and
the association wants to do. And I think that’s the big thing that hasn’t been brought out is the
fact that these homes are going to be much smaller than what’s already there.
Mr. Bartow: Our first pending listing was a 4300 square foot home for at two-fifty. If
you go back and look at the coms of what has closed in that community recently the average, and
I have it here for you if you want to look. This is an MLS data but the average in that
community that has sold has been $187,605. There’s been foreclosures in that neighborhood just
like any other community across Georgia and again all we’re doing is trying to go in there and
build a product that’s going to be comparable to what’s in there. There hasn’t been a closing in
that neighborhood at 256. Our first buyer in the neighborhood purchased from us at 256.
56
Mr. Smith: Well this is the second place in my district that this has happened one of
Willis Foreman Road and they were pretty much upset about the same thing. And so I think
these residents have a right to be concerned about what you’re going to put in there.
Mr. Bartow: We had a meeting with Tracey Dean who’s actually the president of the
HOA. Originally there are no covenants in that community to the building standards to what you
can put. There is no minimum square footage requirements in their covenants. We went with
the 2500 square foot minimum. There’s no requirements on the fronts of the homes. We
originally went in there with accents. We’ve since then appraised the full brick fronts. So I
mean we tried to meet with the people that would actually meet with us in there to describe what
we’re doing, our strategy behind what we feel is going to be a successful venture for the
community. Right now the lots are sitting vacant. I mean they’ve been sitting vacant for years.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Patty, you were getting an answer to something.
Mr. Patty: Those are public streets. That means that they’ve got 31 feet of pavement
from the back of the curb to the back of the curb. Since they were built in the 90’s they’ve only
got a 50-foot right of way. Today we require 60 but that really doesn’t have any effect on the
actual street section it’s built on. So they’re typical subdivision streets.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Ya’ll we’ve heard from the petitioners and heard from the opposition so I think it’s time to vote
has been called for. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I want to make a substitute motion that we approve the zoning request.
Mr. Bowles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion. Okay, Madam Clerk, just for ---
Mr. Smith: Reread the motion.
Mr. Mayor: --- there was a second.
The Clerk: The substitute motion is to approve the petition as requested to establish the
sales office home. The original motion Mr. Smith was to deny the request.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion on the floor to approve with a second.
Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
The Clerk: That motion carries 6-3-1 with Mr. Aitken voting yes, Mr. Bowles, Mr.
Jackson, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Smith didn’t vote.
57
Mr. Smith: I’m sorry I voted wrong.
The Clerk: Okay vote again. Go ahead.
Mr. Lockett: What’s the motion.
The Clerk: The motion is to approve ---
Mr. Mayor: To approve.
Mr. Brigham: Is this the substitute motion?
The Clerk: The substitute motion, yes, sir, to approve.
Mr. Hatney: I need to ask one question.
Mr. Grantham: (inaudible).
Mr. Hatney: I’m sorry I’ve got to. What is the difference in what I wanted to do and
what’s being done now?
Mr. Mayor: And ---
Mr. Brigham: We’re in the middle of voting.
Mr. Hatney: What is the difference?
Mr. Mayor: We were in the middle of voting and, Mr. Attorney, I think that’s a valid
question.
Mr. MacKenzie: I think the difference is the vote had already passed with no objection.
Mr. Hatney: The same thing just happened.
Mr. MacKenzie: But I did review the rules. If you’d like to reconsider the previous item
it only takes a majority vote.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible).
The Clerk: To approve.
Mr. Mayor: To approve to concur with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning.
58
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we have a primary motion on the floor I do believe.
The Clerk: Let me record the vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
The Clerk: The original motion was to deny the petition request for the Special
Exception.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mayor: To deny.
The Clerk: To deny.
Mr. Lockett: The vote is still open. Please you all are confused as is myself this evening.
What is the, what are we voting on now?
The Clerk: To deny ---
Mr. Mayor: To deny the request.
The Clerk: --- the petition for the Special Exception.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. I think I voted wrong though. May I vote over?
The Clerk: Just hit the right button. I haven’t published them.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if we’re going to have that big a problem let’s take a roll call
vote. I think anybody can request that.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Aitken, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Jackson vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
The Clerk: Publish that vote again? It failed 3-6-1. Did you all understand?
Mr. Lockett: If it failed, don’t worry about it.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken?
The Clerk: No action taken.
Mr. Brigham: Let’s go to the next item, please.
59
The Clerk: Okay. Let me do this. Item 27 ---
Mr. Mayor: Both actions were defeated.
The Clerk: Right, no action.
Mr. Grantham: You got six?
Mr. Mayor: You got six no’s.
The Clerk: Not to deny.
Mr. Grantham: Not to deny it?
Mr. Mason: Not to authorize it.
Mr. Grantham: Well, then, you authorized it.
The Clerk: The motion was ---
Mr. Grantham: Not to deny it.
The Clerk: You were voting on the motion to deny it. That failed. Because we only had
three vote yes for the denial. No action taken.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
27. Z-10-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by David P. Pugh requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
affecting property containing approximately .17 acres and is known as 220 Holloway Drive.
(Tax Map 087-2-036-00-0) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you’re getting a workout.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Aragon Park is a lot obviously at some point had some sort of
structure on it. It’s in an upper part of a flood plain. There are a lot of reasons to approve it, a
lot of reasons to deny it. The reasons to approve it are that our policy in that area Hyde Park,
Lombardi Acres and all those similar subdivisions has been that we’re not going to allow mobile
homes as new units that we allow them as replacement units. And I think this one qualifies for
that. It’s an existing lot, there are other mobile homes in the area.
60
The applicant is here I think. The applicant is here. I think it’s a family situation. The
Commission heard both sides of it and I recommend that it be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we hear from the applicant?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, my name is David Pugh. My present address is 2320 2327
Milledgeville Road. And on this property it’s next door to my mother. I’m recently retired from
the city myself. I’m better know known as Birdie Pugh. But anyway my mother’s been living
over there since ’65. When the family members got together and built a new home they
(unintelligible) at 222. Then awhile back I was over there in the front yard a young gentleman
come up from downtown here from the courthouse and he put a sign up (unintelligible) on the
property. And I was being known sir what are you doing? It’s right next to my mother and she’s
83 years old. Anyway he says we’re going to auction this property off. I said no so he said are
you interested and I said yeah and I signed up on it. So anyway I purchased the property from
my sister. My sister’s living in Connecticut and she wanted that property to put a home on it or
something because she’s recently retired this year and she wanted to put a mobile home next to
my mother’s, our mother’s and we’re at this address. So that’s reason I went to Planning and
Zoning I mean you know to try and get it approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Do we have anybody in opposition? Okay if we could
hear from you, ma’am. It seems like I’m a judge today. If you could please state your name and
address for the record, please, ma’am.
Ms. Speaker: (unintelligible) Jones 215 (unintelligible) Augusta, Georgia. I’m in
opposition of it because it was actually my property that got sold on the tax property. A house
has not been on that property for at least twelve years. I’m not in opposition of it because of who
he is but it’s because of what’s coming in. We just lost in the neighborhood at least $20,000
dollars in property value because of what’s going on in Hyde Park. And then if this mobile
home should come in it’s going to further decrease the value of the property. Me being a
property owner I have increased my property by at least, I got one property that I’ve just worked
on and put about $18,000 dollars of renovations on. But because last year the year before last
2008 when, I was unaware that the property value had dropped that much by $20,000 dollars.
And it was valued at $42,000 dollars, got it up to forty-two and then it just took a $20,000 drop
because of this situation with Hyde Park. Now we get another mobile home in there it’s going to
drop further. And we were promised by our Commissioners and our Mayor that there would be
no more modular homes of mobile homes moved into our neighborhood due to the fact of the
matter they approved Mr. Wallace because his house got burned down. And they said they
weren’t doing no more approvals due to the fact of the matter it’s going to crucify our property
values.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did get a couple phone calls in regards to this
matter. I agree I think that of course other mobile homes will decrease the value there. They’ve
already been dealing with some issues with the property value. However I’m pretty sure they’re
61
not opposed to them building a home there on that property versus putting a mobile home there.
I’d like to make a motion to deny this.
That could possibly entreat on their property values so
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, since this is obviously a discussion about homes and home
values do we have some idea of how much the mobile home costs or whether we’re talking about
a single-wide, double-wide or what’s going on here?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pugh.
Mr. Pugh: Well, I’m trying to get enough information to make a decision. First of all,
decreasing the value. My mother must have paid $90,000 dollars for that house she’s in. She
had it built from the ground up. And the man Eli, he’s the next door neighbor to her he’s got all
kind of junk sticking around there. My mother never complained when it’s knocking her
property value way down. And the rest of them down there they look back at you. All around
there they’re in them mobile homes. (Unintelligible) everything’s growed up. I hired people to
go in there and clean it up. How is that decreasing the property value when a new mobile home
is in there? It was all snake infested (unintelligible). My mother’s got plenty of cats around the
house. She feeds them everyday.
Mr. Mayor: Sir, if you could get to the value of the home that you’re putting on there
was the question.
Mr. Pugh: It’s going to be a new mobile home right now. You see my sister just recently
retired ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Pugh: --- the lot’s so small (unintelligible) whatever but temporarily right now until
she gets herself together. But she recently retired from the postal service in Connecticut.
Mr. Brigham: Is it a doublewide or a singlewide?
Mr. Pugh: She wants a doublewide, she wants a doublewide.
Mr. Brigham: She wants a doublewide.
Mr. Pugh: That’s what she wants.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, it’s about what 2400 square feet, something like that?
62
Mr. Pugh: It looks good.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I need to hear from Mr. Patty again. George, you said that there are no
mobile homes allowed unless it’s replacing and existing mobile home?
Mr. Patty: That’s been the policy and that’s not to say it hasn’t been contested. We go
back twenty plus years ago this started in Hyde Park and Aragon Park and a good many mobile
homes have been approved in both. You know knowing the flooding history in the area and the
other problems in the area ---
Mr. Bowles: If that’s the policy, how was it approved?
Mr. Patty: The policy that we have had has been to approve the replacements. And in
this case there are numerous other mobile homes adjacent to this one or either across the street
from it. You know you just got to weigh the factors and make a decision.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham: Can you restate the motion please?
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: To deny the petition.
Mr. Brigham: Thank you.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Ya’ll ever seen those movies where people wake up and it’s all a bad dream.
That’s what I kind of feel like now. Madam Clerk, let’s move on to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
32. Discussion of Hyatt Place Parking Deck Bonds and receive as information Hyatt Place
Hotel Bonds by the Downtown Development Authority.
The Clerk: I think Mr. Mason had that item.
Mr. Mason: We’re on thirty-two?
63
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, I’m just trying to get some clarity on the I guess the City Administrator
or whomever can talk to this piece. I think I’m pretty clear on the parking deck portion of that
and oh, Ms. Woodard here. In reference to the hotel bonds I just want to get some clarity on that.
What are we, just passing out some information? Is that what they’re doing?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, please. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Speaker: (Unintelligible) 181 Grandview Parkway (unintelligible) Alabama. The
reference to hotel bonds is really not accurate. The information on the hotels we want to give
you an update on the hotel’s progress. The request is for bonds for the DDA to do the deck
whereas to build the hotel on top of it.
Mr. Mason: As you can see I was kind of confused.
Mr. Speaker: I understand.
Mr. Mason: Right, okay.
Mr. Mayor: So the bonding authority pertains only to the parking deck not the hotel
itself.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now let’s get this thing built. It looks good.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
36. Motion to approve Appeal of Personnel Board Rulings regarding John Allen and
Santonio Dennis.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: I entertain a motion to approve or deny.
64
Mr. Brigham: Motion to approve to appeal.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Hatney: Substitute to deny.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Brigham: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, he called for the question.
Mr. Mason: I need a parliamentary ruling. We haven’t had a chance for any discussion.
Just calling the question, does that mean it absolutely stops?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: I believe you can still have discussions on it as long as there hasn’t been
a vote unless the rule by the Chairman has been overturned by a majority vote.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s my call? But I can also, correct me if I’m wrong I can limit debate to
a certain time frame, correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I will allow a five-minute debate on this issue. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
I’ll recognize you first.
Mr. Mason: I simply want to put something in on the record just to make sure that we’re
clear. I hate the fact of where we are today and how we got here and I’m not going to overly
hash that situation. Um, I don’t condone anyone taking time from the government period. I
th
want to make sure that we’re clear on that. But this government back in February 10 of 1997 I
want to read this into the record from the Administrative Services Committee that adopted this
personnel board and the decision making authority of this personnel board. The City Attorney
Mr. Wall said this. This would get the Commission out of the process in so far as review of
personnel decisions. Currently it goes from the department head to the Administrator and then
from the Administrator to the Personnel Board then to the Commission to make a decision. Our
suggestion and our recommendation is that you take the Commission out of the process. Once it
goes to the Personnel Board that decision would be the decision of the government and the
employee would be notified and at that point if they wanted to challenge it further the next step
would be to appeal it to the court. After a short discussion Mr. Bridges made a motion that they
accept the change in the current policy of the Personnel Board so they have the final decision.
This is what was adopted, Mr. Brigham seconded it, Henry Brigham that is and then the motion
was adopted unanimously and Mr. Brigham voted on that in March, Jerry. My statement to this
is this. Be it right wrong or indifferent this is what was put into the ordinance and adopted. And
so this what a person sees and this is what the government sees in terms of what the process is to
65
go through, that we may not like it and it may not be correct and we may ought to look at
changing it. But the fact of the matter is this is what’s in place. I don’t know of any repeal that
has happened to this ordinance for that I just wanted to be able to read that into the record. And
that makes us have to make a decision that’s a troubling decision but this is what’s in the record
and I just wanted to make sure we put that out there, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And briefly also it’s stated I think in that
ordinance as well the only party that can appeal would be the employee not the employer. So the
only appealing process they have is if the employee do not agree with the terms or what
happened in that particular process that they can appeal I think to superior court. So that’s the
ordinance and that’s how it’s stated at this point and I don’t think that we have we shouldn’t
override the authority that we gave legal at that particular time to take the Commission out of
making that decision. And we need to stand true by that. I truly believe that policies have been
changed within the department. The same steps have been taken to improve that so it won’t
happen in the future. So I think at this point we have made progress although this situation is an
unfortunate situation but I truly think at this point we just need to move forward. We can’t go
back and reprimand the guys that we put back to work so it’s not going to be a fair situation
either way it goes. So I just truly need we need to move forward on it and make sure we
continue to get our house in order and get things in place so we won’t have this issue to occur in
the near future.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and we have one minute left on debate but I did want to get a
clarification on state law from the attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure. Although our policies and procedures only outline the right of the
appealing party which would be the employee state law specifically provides that either party,
which is displeased with a decision of an inferior judicial type body such as the personnel board
may appeal that decision. So the government does have the legal right to appeal the decision
even though you have pointed out the policies only indicate that the employee has the right to
appeal according to state law, both parties have the right to appeal.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, briefly.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Attorney, it’s unfortunate though that the attorney’s that
were in place at that time did not see the need to put that statement in that particular ordinance.
It’s unfortunate.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. MacKenzie: That can be changed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, effectively we’re past the five minutes for debate. So I believe we
need to that’s the rule that I set down so we need to vote on this one. We have a substitute
66
motion on the floor and for clarity, Madam Clerk, if you could please read the substitute motion
back.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to deny the appeal process of the ruling of the
Personnel Board regarding Mr. Allen and Mr. Dennis.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Aitken: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I need to get clarity on that motion again, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: To deny the appealing the Personnel Board’s decision.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, there’s the original motion on the floor as well.
The Clerk: To approve the appeal to move forward with the appeal of the Personnel
Board’s decision.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: And I just want to take one point of personal privilege to back up what I
think was said up here that we agreed upon in the Commission. We know we need to change the
policy. There’s an agreement to do that so we don’t get put in this situation in going forward.
Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, the final agenda item.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
37. Discuss Augusta State/Damascus Road property. (Requested by Commissioner Don
Grantham)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham:
I believe that was my item and we’ve had quite a bit of discussion in
regards to Augusta State University and that nine acres on Damascus Road which is adjacent to
the housing for the students. And with that being said without a whole lot of discussion and
approve the passing of that
being late in the evening I’m going to make a motion that we
property to Augusta State University from the City of Augusta.
67
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by ---
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor:
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: While this is not directly related to it I would like to hear a report from the
Administrator where we’re at with the talking book store because it could be related to this
property and I would like a report as to that situation.
Mr. Russell: Yes, we’ve had conversations with the State Properties Commission in
reference to this. As you are aware at this point a quid pro quo would not be appropriate because
it will take an act of the legislature to make that change in that property. The conversations I’ve
had with the properties commission have been encouraging. In addition to that we’ve talked to
not only the Board of Regents of Augusta State that they will work with us to make that happen
as best they could. I think that’s something that’s very possible down the line. I could not get
commitments at this particular point in time due to the political nature of the environment I
believe at the moment but I was encouraged by that. They seem to have no use for it at this
particular point in time and I was very happy with that discussion.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, the Administrator may be happy with that discussion but the
state sometimes tends to forget that we’re in Augusta and we have priorities and needs they don’t
always act in the way that we’d like for them to act concerning us. I don’t want to stop Augusta
College from developing this property but I do have a real problem if we do this and we don’t
get something that we need for our own future plans. And I would prefer that we find a legal
way to do a Bond of Title or something them to start construction while we wait and see what
legislature’s going to do.
Mr. Mason: Is that a ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a ---
Mr. Mason: --- substitute motion or did he make a statement?
Mr. Brigham: We can make a substitute out of it.
The Clerk: Okay, could you state that again Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Mayor: Wait, is that a substitute motion?
Mr. Mason: I thought he made a statement.
Mr. Grantham: He made a statement.
68
Mr. Mason: Second to a statement?
Mr. Mayor: No, but it wasn’t an actual substitute motion.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham, we’re you making a substitute motion?
Mr. Brigham: I can.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, let me just say. I’ve spoken to the State Properties
Commission I know what you’re talking about. But correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that
that building falls under the Board of Regents the talking does not. But Mr. Dr. Bloodworth
would you like to address this issue right quick or would you, are you?
Dr. Bloodworth: I’m William Bloodworth, President of Augusta State University 2010
National Champions.
Mr. Mayor: 2010 National Champions. (APPLAUSE) Let’s end on a high note people.
Dr. Bloodworth: Could I have just a few minutes of the Commission’s time to explain
where we’re going in these matters if it would be all right Mr. Mayor? I’ve got Power Point
slide there. I just want to make a few points here, not necessarily relevant to that. Augusta State
University when I arrived here in 1993 was arguably the ugliest campus in Georgia. It’s not that
anymore. I’m going to show some picture of the campus. The first nine years that I was
president we saw virtually no change in enrollment. As a matter of fact if you look at those
numbers up there you’ll see that our number of full time equivalent students actually fell and
meant fewer full time students. In the seven years since then we’ve seen a huge increase in the
number of students that made the decision to attend Augusta State University. A huge change.
The reason for that is obviously we’re now a very attractive place because of our apartments that
we call University Village, because of our student activity center and because of about $80
million dollars worth of public improvement to be made on our campus. Here’s the deal for us
and for you and for the city. This is what happening right now. University Village. We have
two, we have twice as many signed leases for this next year as we did a year ago. Another words
students are coming our way. They’re making that decision. We want to increase that. This is
what’s happening around the university system. Everybody is ramping up to take care of
students from the 31-county metro Atlanta area. Look at these figures. Georgia Southern has
added three, 3300-student beds since ’03. You see what West Georgia’s done, Valdosta’s done,
Middle Georgia has done. It’s just incredible because the students are there for the taking. And
why are institutions doing this and why do we want to do this for an obvious economic reason.
Every student who comes to Augusta State University who could go someplace else, for every
student someplace else who could go some place else but comes here again is going to spend at
least $20,000 dollars a year in the local economy. That’s big time money. It means more sales
tax it means more state appropriations for us. It means we hire more people it means more
property taxes it means growth for Augusta. So that’s what we’re looking at. But we cannot do
this, we cannot keep pace unless we have additional land. That’s the bottom line for us. We’d
like to help this city grow. I think there is no reason why a student should choose to go to
69
Valdosta or Statesboro or Carrolton instead of Augusta. We’d like to be in that mix. We’d like
to grow. We can’t do it without real estate. And that’s the reason for my request to Mayor
Copenhaver for the acreage on Damascus Road. And I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Brigham,
that you understand what this is all about. It’s about increasing the tax base, it’s about increasing
the local economy in Augusta Georgia and we will do whatever we can do to help you get an
edge in with the State Properties Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in very much in support of what ASU
wants to do but there is one thing I would to make sure my colleague Mr. Grantham does is make
sure that in his motion he indicates the fact that certain clearance on Damascus Road would be
still utilized for parking for the Aquatic Center.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, and that was one thing and I will include that in the motion that Mr.
Russell, Tom Beck and Augusta State discuss was that on the weekend where there is overflow
need for parking it would be available. And that would have to be worked out under a separate
type document, Mr. Lockett, because of it being now going under state properties.
Dr. Bloodworth: We would love for cars to park there. We’d love it because that means
that families probably brought their children to the Aquatic Center. They see how beautiful that
part of our campus is. It’ll build future enrollment so we would love to work that out. We will
do whatever we can to accommodate the needs of the Aquatic Center.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Can we make part of that that they cannot put Augusta State stickers on cars
that are parked there without the people’s permission?
Mr. Mayor: Okay the question has been called for. Madam Clerk, if you once again
finally for the point of clarity because I don’t think we’re going to have enough folks wanting to
go into Legal, reread the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to pass the property Damascus Road property on to Augusta
State with to include parking for the Aquatic Center.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Grantham: Should that be needed a separate document that needs to be worked out
as far as that goes. And I made that clarified with Mr. Lockett.
The Clerk: The essence of the motion was to allow for overflow parking in the center as
needed.
70
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Going out on a winning note. Speaking of which I just want to let ya’ll
know that in training for the Iron Man I went out at 2:30 today and ran three miles and swam for
thirty minutes thinking this wasn’t going to be a long meeting. I’m about to drop dead.
Mr. Grantham: Do you remember what I told you yesterday morning?
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
Mr. Grantham: That we wouldn’t get out of here until 9:00 o’clock tonight.
Mr. Mayor: It’s 8:09 and we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
June 15, 2010.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
71
72