Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting October 18, 2011 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER OCTOBER 18, 2011 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., October 18, 2011, the Hon. Joe Bowles, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bowles, Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Smith, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Absent: Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. The invocation was given by Dr. C.W. Joyner, Jr., Pastor Broadway Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll call the meeting to order and I’d like for the invocation by Dr. C.W. Joyner. The Clerk: Dr. Joyner? Reverend Hatney, could you fill in for Dr. Joyner? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Please stand. (Invocation was given by Rev. Hatney) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, first we’ll take Mr. Wayne Hawkins with his presentation. The Clerk: PRESENTATION(S) A. Mr. Wayne Hawkins. RE: Presentation to five (5) charitable organizations from the Mayor’s Masters Reception Committee. Mr. Hawkins: I have some checks to give out today to the six charities that benefit from the Mayor’s Masters Reception Committee every year. The first is the Augusta Warrior Project. The next one is for Mr. Tom Beck for the Richmond County Recreation Department. Ms. Vicky Green with the Walton Foundation. Vicky’s crowd raises most of the money and concessions for us in order that we have this money to give away so Vicky’s a big part of this thing every year. The Children’s Medical Center and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Anybody here from the ASU Women’s Golf Program? There she is. The men get a lot of attention and they should but we’ve supported the women’s golf program through the Mayor’s Masters Reception since it started at ASU so we thank y’all for y’all’s help. That’s it then. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On to the delegations, Madam Clerk. 1 The Clerk: DELEGATIONS B. Ms. Elizabeth C. Moore. RE: Concerns with property values in the Hyde Park Community. (Requested by Commissioner J.R. Hatney) Ms. Moore: Good afternoon. I have a copy here for each Commissioner of what I’m going to say because I know you have a time limit of five minutes and I don’t, I’m sorry ,sir, and I don’t want to go over the five minutes. But just in case I run out of time you will be aware of what, everything I wanted to say. May I proceed? Mr. Bowles: Inaudible. Mr. Russell: Pull your mike down, Joe. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, please. Ms. Moore: Thank you. Mayor Deke Copenhaver, Mayor of Augusta Georgia, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Thank you for allowing me to address the commission this evening. I am a co-owner of heir properties 125 and 127 Horton Drive in Hyde Park area of Augusta, Georgia. I am speaking today on behalf of myself, my siblings and land and homeowners to request that you consider stopping the purchase of our land to install a retention/detention pond for the City of Augusta. Over 30 years ago my parents Mr. Arthur and Cordio Ruth Harris Moore Jr. now deceased began a struggle with other residents for relocation due to a contamination issue within Hyde Park. The land was not known to be contaminated when purchased. They were told the contamination of the property was caused by water drain off from the former Goldberg Salvage Facility. After many years of testing soil and residents it was determined that the area was not contaminated by some and that is contaminated by others. Now we have been informed of a proposal by the city of Augusta to purchase Hyde Park and relocate residents for a retention pond. This relocation plan which was explained to Hyde Park residents in 2010 at a community meeting is not one which is agreed upon by all owners. I believe the relocation will take place under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. After reading the law and speaking to officials in Atlanta Georgia and Washington DC it is opinion that the plan does not equally compensate owners for their homes and land. Under this 1970’s act homeowners who do not occupy their homes cannot be relocated and will be paid a fair market value for property per the city tax assessors and in our case Augusta Richmond County. Therefore if you had an owner recently deceased such as a parent who owned the land and in most instances over 40-60 years and you have not relocated to the home then you lose your family home. Within in the last two years the city of Augusta devalued property in the Hyde Park area. My property value is now less than $6,000.00. We believe this was a deliberate attempt to steal land from residents. At the current time there are many homes in the Hyde Park Area where original owners have passed away and the homes are not rented and are unoccupied. Our family’s home was occupied from 1950 until my mother left her home due to ill health and died in 2008. After my father’s death in 1993 I refurbished some of the rooms for my mom to make the home more comfortable. Since my mother left the home I 2 pay for biweekly lawn maintenance plus to keep the property safe for other neighbors. I had Georgia Power install a large street spotlight on the property in addition to keeping lights on at the home. I also pay property taxes and home owners insurance. Paying me the devalued fair market price for the home would not make me and my family whole. Just as other residents mortgage their homes to upgrade the living conditions these mortgages will remain with them in relocation. Homeowners who live in trailers also may not be compensated as well. The cost for th the retention pond exceeds $18 million dollars and heard in minutes from the October 10 engineering meeting only $200 million dollars plus dollars are currently available through SPLOST. If all of the funds are not available, why the urgency to begin relocating the residents? I am very distressed about the current situation as is many of the land and owners who wish to remain in their homes and for those of us who wish to maintain ownership of family property. All we’re asking is for the city of Augusta to consider our request that the land involved on for the proposal for the retention pond to current concerns and issues can be resolved. Although acquiring this property for the city may be legal it is immoral for the government to take family land in this manner. I am in disagreement with the sale due to unfair compensation for all land owners. It is not too late for you to make the right decision and be responsible government officials and avert a social and economic problem for the people of Hyde Park. I appeal to you to respect your own laws and the standards of decency of American society. I ask the Commission to consider having a committee meet individually with the families in the Hyde Park and land owners and hear all of their concerns. I conclude by restating that I am in disagreement with the purchase at this time due to questionable funding, unexplained urgency and failure of residents and land owners to be made totally whole financially. Land and homeowners as well as renters should be treated fairly and compensated accordingly. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address the Commission. Respectfully. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Administrator, would you like to address any of her concerns now or anybody want to have any comments? Mr. Russell: I think the items on the agenda it would probably be appropriate to talk at that point. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Can I get a motion to receive as information? Mr. Johnson: So moved. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All vote by the usual signal. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: DELEGATION(S) B. Mr. Brian Green regarding the flow of traffic downtown. 3 Mr. Green: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Actually I had written down traffic and I mentioned something about transportation. I’d just like to touch on those too. The first issue deals with traffic flow downtown. As I’ve read and done my own little investigative work I guess you can say I’ve come across some terms of traffic flow and something called a Butterfly Effect. A Butterfly Effect supposedly when something happens when the flow of traffic is diverted to another area other than what it was intended which leads me to my point about impediments downtown. Anything could cause a Butterfly Effect. In other words a driver making a sudden lane shift or something like that or slamming on brakes, whatever, causing another driver to go around them. Railroad tracks downtown some people may drive across the railroad tracks pretty fast or without slowing down. Other people are going to slow down. Now I’m sure you gentlemen are aware that we probably need to improve those. Secondly, these delivery trucks. No offense to anybody everybody has to make their business and this that and the other but it has to be a better way that we can have the delivery trucks make their deliveries. And I’ve asked around I’ve asked the professionals and I’ve gotten some real good feedback. And I want to ask this commission why not. Why can’t UPS, Budweiser and everybody else deliver their goods on Jones Street and Ellis Street? And the point I’d like to make with that is if I’m driving on Broad Street and I happen to get in an accident hypothetically yes it’s my fault because I was the vehicle in motion. But my question beyond that is, is it totally my fault that that vehicle has to be parked in the lane? If there’s such an ordinance on that Commissioners I’d like to know where that ordinance is, who approved that ordinance and if that’s the case is it okay for the average citizen just supposed if I was delivering something to the Chronicle or to this building, can I just park in the lane and just put my four way signals on and get out and deliver my product. How many minutes do I have left? The Clerk: You have about three. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Three left. Mr. Green: Okay. And the other thing is maybe this commission can, will consider loading zones. I don’t believe any business down here and I know we have a lot of great business owners are going to lose business if you install maybe four to six loading zones. It’s not reserved parking they’re a loading zones. Your bigger trucks they can simply make their deliveries around back via Ellis Street or Jones Street. I know we talk about development and this that and the other but we’ve got to make some small steps towards tracking that type of development and improvement. This is an easy situation to fix. My only other thing I’d like to mention is transportation. I’ve had situations where I’ve had to catch buses. I like when the issue comes up before this Commission is you really take a good look at it. If you can’t dump more money into it at least gentlemen create some new bus routes. Maybe Tobacco Road, Peach Orchard Road, one on the hour to Fort Gordon. It took, one time I was traveling I had to get to Kroger and one other place. It took it cost me $30.00 to come from Pepperidge to Kroger. $30.00 gentlemen. And I’d like to say for $55.00 you can get on an Easy Ride I think it is and go to Atlanta. There’s a problem and every time I mention that to a cab driver. Maybe you gentlemen and other people and that’s great that you don’t need a cab but how about the citizens who do? And you know how it is in South Augusta with the location and all. Every time I’ve asked the cab driver about this they say well the Commission sets the fees. So I’d like to end on that note. Maybe you can consider this on the fees. Something has to give for your citizens that 4 don’t have access to those other things or have two cars sitting up in the driveway and that sort of thing. That’s all I have and I appreciate your time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Can I get a motion to receive as information please? Mr. Johnson: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second? Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All vote by the regular signal. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: DELEGATION(S) D. Mr. Robert A. Cooks, ANIC, President & CEO. RE: Laney Walker Neighborhood Association. Mr. Cooks: Good evening Commission, Mayor Pro Tem, community constituents. My name is Robert Cooks. I’m the CEO of the Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation. I stand here today before you as a quasi-delegate for the neighborhood association of Laney Walker. If you notice there’s a number of people in the room that have red shirts on. So what I’d like to ask them to do is raise their hand. You don’t have to stand up if you are in support of Laney Walker Neighborhood. There’s a couple of issues I’d like to address that have to come to the concern of the neighborhood association that we’d like to put before the Commission. Number one the traffic study that was done for Laney Walker Boulevard concerning the closing of Laney Walker Boulevard that document has never been published and we would like to see a copy of it with reference to the closing of Laney Walker. Number two there’s concern in the community with reference to overlay zoning that’s been proposed through the Planning Commission and under the auspices of disclosure I am a member of the Planning Commission. I’m not wearing that hat at the moment. Secondly my last issue is crime and the development of a crime initiative for Laney Walker. This may not be the right body to ask this for this support but I think it needs to start here. In working with our commissioner for District 1 Matt Aitken we’ve had various meetings about crime and safety. There’s one particular issue a bus stop at Dyess Park that we would like the transportation shelter removed. We don’t want to change the stop we’d just like the shelter removed. It is a node of illicit activity and I’ll leave it at that. The bus stop is fine but the shelter is what creates a problem for the neighborhood. In addition the neighborhood association is quite uncomfortable with the lack of communication that’s happening with reference to redevelopment. The seniors would like to be communicated in a more direct fashion. All of the departments are cooperating in communicating with the neighborhood association so we’re not throwing anybody under the bus. We want to say to everybody guess what Laney Walker is a neighborhood of concern and they’ve asked me to be their voice. Thank you for hearing me. 5 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Can I get a motion to receive as information? Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Aitken: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All vote by the regular sign. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On to the consent agenda, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Let me publish this vote, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Guilfoyle, will you be voting? Mr. Guilfoyle: I am so sorry. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-29, items 1-29. For the benefit of any objectors to any of our Planning petitions would you please signify your objection once the petition is read. I call your attention to: Item 2: Is a request for a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home on property located at 1947 Harrison Drive. Item 3: Is a Special Exception to establish public parking during the Masters Golf Tournament affecting property known as 353 Heath Drive and 357 Berckman Road. Item 4: Is to approve a Special Exception with conditions for property known at 511 Pleasant Home Road. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Okay. I call your attention to our Public Services portion of the agenda. If there are any objectors to any of the alcohol petitions would you please signify your objection by once the petition is read. I call your attention to: Item 6: Is for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the location at 923 Alexander Drive. Item 7: Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the location at 1235 Gordon Highway. Item 8: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the location at 2803 Wrightsboro Road. Item 9: Is for a retail package Beer license to be used in connection with the location at 843 Laney Walker Boulevard. 6 Item 10: Is for retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the location at 3217 Wrightsboro Road. Item 11: Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the location at 3481 Wrightsboro Road. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of those alcohol petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, our consent agenda consists of items 1-29 with no objectors to our Planning or alcohol petitions. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I’d like to see if there are any additions to the consent agenda. Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Item number 37. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number 37. Any other additions? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if it’s all right with you I’d like to suggest we add items 31 through 35. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Mason: Madam Clerk, I’ll be, I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: --- Pro Tem. I just want to be registered as no vote on 31-35. I don’t need to pull it or anything just register me as a no vote on that. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: I would also like to be registered as a no vote on those agenda items mentioned. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Did after Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Same for me, Madam Clerk. 7 The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk? Same for me and I abstain on alcohol too. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson would like to add item #38, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Thirty-eight? Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Then I’d like to see what deletions from the consent. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: I know number 30 was just added by I have a question about that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Lockett: I don’t think I’m going to duplicate anything but I’d like to pull 14, 15, 18 - -- The Clerk: Just a moment Mr. Lockett. Fourteen --- Mr. Lockett: Fifteen. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Eighteen. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Nineteen, 23, 26 and I would like for my agenda number 20, 29 a No vote. I’m voting no on those because the deal is with reorganization and I question the legality of the Personnel, Policy and Procedures Manual. I’d like for that to be noted also. Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: I don’t need to pull anything but I want to register a no vote on five. Was twelve pulled? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Not yet, no, sir. Mr. Mason: I don’t need to pull it but that’s No vote there. And so 5 and 12 and 28, 29. 8 The Clerk: Okay, you’re voting No on 28 and 29? Mr. Mason: Yes and 5 and 12. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other items? All right. Madam Clerk, do you want to repeat the deletions and additions or? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. The Clerk: For our consent agenda we’re adding item 37, items 31-35 and item 38 to the consent agenda. Go ahead, the Attorney he --- Mr. McKenzie: Just to clarify 37 and 14 are companion items. Fourteen is being pulled did you want to pull 37 too? Actually one of them, 14 would need to be deleted. It’s inclusive of 37 but I just wanted to let you know they’re the same item but only one of them is being pulled. Mr. Lockett: Mr. General Counsel, you got to pull both of them or you can do them as companion. I think it would be the same. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just pull both of them --- Mr. Lockett: Yeah, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir, item 38. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thirty-seven. The Clerk: Thirty-seven. Items to be pulled, items 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 37 the alcohol and 38. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think item 22 as well, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: I beg your pardon, sir? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I believe Commissioner Lockett pulled item 22. Is that correct or is that no? Okay that’s wrong. Sorry about that. All right that’s our consent. Can I get a motion to approve? Mr. Johnson: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a second? 9 Mr. Aitken: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. FINAL PLAT – MAYO TOWNHOMES, PHASE 4 – S-708-IV – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of Gene Vintson, requesting final plat approval of mayo Townhomes, Phase 4. This residential townhome development is located on Mayo Lane, adjacent to Mayo Townhomes, Phases 1-3 and contains 3 lots. 2. Z-11-4- - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning commission to approve a petition by Kemberly Younts, on behalf of Solomon Investments, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing .50 acres and is known as 1947 Harrison Drive. (Tax Map 071-3-169-00-0) DISTRICT 5 3. Z-11-42 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve a petition by Patrick J. Rice, on behalf of Berckman Residential Properties and Augusta National, requesting a Special Exception to establish public parking during the Masters Golf Tournament per Section 8-2 (b) of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing two tracts as follows: Tract A – contains 1.0 acre and is known as 353 Heath Drive. (Tax map 018-0-078-01-0) DISTRICT 7 Tract B – contains .43 acres and is known as 357 Berckman Road. (Tax Map 018-0-114-00-0) DISTRICT 7 4. Z-11-43 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) the site plan is to substantially conform to the concept plan submitted with this petition; 2) a deceleration lane will be constructed; 3) the sidewalk will be extended to the east of the subject property to the corner of Greengate Drive and Pleasant Home Road; 4) a mounded berm will be created as part of the landscaping to shield the parking lot; 5) a 6 foot wood privacy fence will be erected and maintained along the property line adjacent to Greengate Subdivision except for a portion of the fence nearest Pleasant Home Road which shall be constructed of brick/stone columns with faux or wrought iron fencing in between and 6) the sign shall be a monument sign, less than 24 square feet in area with a maximum height of 6 feet and no internal lighting; a petition by Dennis Trotter, on behalf of Dr. William Allen Cook Blalock and Lisa Ann Blalock, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center per Section 26-1 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing 7.26 acres and is known as 511 Pleasant Home Road. (Tax Map 016-0- 039-00-0) DISTRICT 7 PUBLIC SERVICES 5. Motion to approve amendments to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2, Alcoholic Beverages, so as to increase the application fee, Sunday Sales fee, alcohol catering fee, transfer fees, single-event alcohol fee, and to increase the alcohol license fees. (Approved by the Commission October 4, 2011 – second reading. 6. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 11-44: request by Stephen J. Gimpelson for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Augusta Liquors, 10 Inc. located at 923 Alexander Dr. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 7. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-45: – request by Harshadkumar Parmar for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hardiyogi, LLC DBA Lucky Spot Mart located at 1235 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 8. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-46: request by Burton E. Eichel for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Eichel Group LLC DBA The Village Deli located at 2803 Wrightsboro Rd #28. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 9. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-47: request by Il Ki Choi for a retail package Beer license to be used in connection with Sun & Choi Foods, LLC DBA Laney Walker Supermarket located at 843 Laney Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 10. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-48: request by Gurpreet Walia for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Royal Wine & Beverages located at 3217 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 11. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 11-49: request by Jeffrey Griffin for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Raceway #6872 located at 3481 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 12. Motion to approve amendments to Augusta-Richmond County Code, Section 7-1-90 PERMIT FEES, so as to increase certain fees required in connection with the issuance of permits. (Approved by the Public Services Committee October 4, 2011) 13. Motion to approve the final amendments to the FY2011 Aging Services contracts with CSRA Regional Commission for wellness grant. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 16. Motion to approve identifying a consultant who would work on a contingency basis and bring back the proposal that would identify and collect revenue that is currently not being captured by the License and Inspection Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) 17. Motion to approve a recommendation by the Board of Assessors Office to approve a resolution that’s required by state law for next year to set the minimum acreage at 25 on qualified parcels for conservation use in Augusta-Richmond County. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) ENGINEERING SERVICES 20. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget 323-041110-296823308 with Rhythm Engineering in the amount of $74,300.00 to provide InSync adaptive traffic control system. Funds are available in the project account for the Engineering Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) 11 21. Motion to approve the deeds of dedication maintenance agreements, and road resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Augusta Utilities Departments for Elderberry Subdivision Section 4. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) 22. Motion to approve emergency construction services for repairing sections of storm conveyance system and sidewalks in the amount of $28,809.00 for Horizon Construction, funded from SPLOST Phase VI account number 328-041110-5414110/211828001-5414110 as requested by the Augusta Engineering Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) 24. Motion to approve CPB #323-041110-296823603, Supplemental Agreement Number Three, and Change Number Two with Hussey, Gay, Bell and DeYoung, Inc. in the amount of $31,410.00 for Marvin Griffin Road Improvements. Funds are available in project account as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) 25. Motion to approve Capital Budget Change Number One and Change Order One for additional and modified site drainage improvements in the amount of $80,262.00 to Jeffery Harris Trucking, Inc. on National Avenue @ New Savannah road Pipe Replacement project. Funding will be from SPLOST VI Grading and Drainage as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 27. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held October 4, 2011 and Legal Meeting held October 10, 2011. SUBCOMMITTEE Pension & Audit Committee 28. Motion to adopt Ordinance/”GMEBS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Adoption Agreement, General Addendum, and Service Credit Purchase Addendum for Augusta, Georgia (Augusta GMEBS Plan I)”. (Approved by the Augusta Commission October 4, 2011 – second reading) Pension and Audit Committee 29. Motion to approve the adoption of Ordinance/”GMEBS Defined Benefit Retirement Plan Adoption Agreement and General Addendum for Certain Former Employees of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission (Augusta GMEBS Plan II)” (Approved by the Augusta Commission October 4, 2011 – second reading) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 31. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Seven Chapters One through Three Sections 7-1-19, 7-1-19.2, 7-1-19.6 through 7-1-19.9, 7-1-26 through 7-1-33, 7-1-47 through 7-1-48, 7-1-86, 7-1-116-2, 7-1-116-4 through 7-1-116-5, 7-1-136, 7-2-3, 7-2-63, 7-2- 76, and 7-3-73 relating to the powers and duties of the License and Inspection Department; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) 32. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Six Chapter Seven Sections 6-7-5, 6-7-42 through 6-7-43, 6-7-60, 6-7-69, 6-7-90 through 6-7-91, 6-7-96 through 6-7-97 and 6-7- 110 relating to the powers and duties of the License and Inspection Department; to repeal 12 all Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide and effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) 33. And Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Six Chapter Six Sections 6-6-5 and 6-6-37 through 6-6-47 relating to the powers and duties of the License and Inspection Department; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services committee October 10, 2011) 34. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Six Chapter Two Sections 6-2-2, 6- 2-5, 6-2-59 through 6-2-60, 6-2-70 through 6-2-72, 6-2-75 through 6-2-77, 6-2-103, 6-2-116, 6-2-119 through 6-2-125, and 6-2-142 through 6-2-143 relating to the powers and duties of the License and Inspection Department; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) 35. And Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Six Chapters Four and Five Sections 6-4-1, 6-4-7, and 6-5-7 relating to the powers and duties of the License and Inspection Department; to repeal all Code Section and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor vote by the regular sign. Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 9-1. [Items 6-11] Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Mason vote No. Motion carries 6-4. [Items 31-35] Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No. Motion carries 8-2. [Items 28 and 29] Mr. Mason votes No. Motion carries 9-1. [Items 5 and 12] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-4, 13, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, 25-27] The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, are going with the pulled items? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right items 14 and 37 as companion items. The Clerk: Yes, sir. PUBLIC SERVICES 14. Motion to approve a resolution authorizing a referendum to allow package sales on Sundays by retailers of package malt beverages and wine and for other purposes. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) 13 ATTORNEY 37. Motion to approve a resolution authorizing a referendum to allow package sales on Sundays by retailers of package malt beverages, wine and distilled spirits. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett? Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the questions I had was is I looked at the two items and I saw a slight difference between 14 and 37. My understanding is 14 dealt with just malt beverages, wine and not whiskey. Is that correct, General Counsel? Mr. McKenzie: That’s correct. It did not include distilled spirits and it was actually several different provisions in Georgia law that addresses these. And the reason it was altered as it does have a clause in it that there are some jurisdictions that do not allow the sale of distilled spirits. And so there’s a statutory regime for those. Inadvertently that section was used by ACCG in their model ordinance. Once we realized we’re a jurisdiction that regulates both we altered that to add the words distilled spirits. Mr. Lockett: You said you amended it to add the words what, Mr. General Counsel? Mr. McKenzie: To add the words distilled spirits. Mr. Lockett: Okay, when you say, okay, packaged malt beverages why the package? Are you saying that you can buy malt beverages as long as they put it in the bag on Sunday? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. McKenzie: Well, that language was copied right out of the Georgia Code and it was actually was a definition of malt beverages which is primarily designed to encompass beer and other malt beverages and wine. Mr. Lockett: So 37 is saying you can buy anything. You’ll be able to buy anything on Sunday dealing with alcoholic beverages. Is that what you’re saying? Mr. McKenzie: Probably not moonshine but everything else. Mr. Lockett: Anything that’s legal in the state of Georgia, Mr. General Counsel? Mr. McKenzie: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion? Mr. Johnson: So moved. Mr. Jackson: Second. 14 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right a motion and a second. All in favor vote. Mr. McKenzie: Clarify what that would be a motion to delete 14 and a motion to approve 37. Mr. Lockett: Is this going to be separate votes or is it going to be all conclusive? The Clerk: It’s companion, together. The motion will be to delete item 14 and to approve item 37. Mr. Lockett: Well, Mr. Chairman, I’m kind of in a pickle here because I’m voting to delete 14 but I’m voting no on approving 37. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. The Clerk: So noted. Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Hatney: I’m voting no on both of them. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett if you, I mean, I will clarify your vote for you once you for the record. We need unanimous consent to delete so that’s why I need to vote. Mr. Lockett: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Okay, thank you. Mr. Lockett: You want me to vote again? The Clerk: No, sir, you’re fine. That motion carries 8-2 with Mr. Lockett voting to delete item 14 and voting no on item 37. Dr. Hatney voting no on both items. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right on to item 15, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 15. Motion to approve Augusta, Georgia’s desires to update and amend the Code as related to the abolishment of the License and Inspection Department and the transfer of those powers and duties to the Planning and Development Department to be consistent with the Proposed Government Reorganization Draft Project Plan and to designate the name of the 15 consolidated government as “Augusta, Georgia”. Augusta, Georgia seeks to update the local laws to reflect the name of the consolidated government. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have just made the comment earlier on. I just vote no because of reorganization. So it would be the same as I indicated before. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we’ll make a motion. Mr. Brigham: Move we approve. Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor or opposed vote by the usual sign. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On to item 18, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: FINANCE 18. Motion to approve the sole-source purchase of two International 5900 trucks from Mays International in the amount of $511,785 by the Environmental Services Department. (Approved by Finance Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Russell, I believe this is for you. Being the Chair of Administrative Services I’ve dealt with quite a few of these policies and so forth over the past year. I know at the Administrative Services meeting or the committee meeting last Monday I was rather ill and not as sharp as I would like to be. And my colleague Commissioner Mason asked the question about whether or not sufficient documentation was present on that particular item. And the response he got from the director of that department was rather flippant. So in the next course of days I began to feel a little better and I’ve done a little research and I found out that proper procedure wasn’t utilized. The Procurement Section 1-10-56 was not complied with at all. Procurement was completely bypassed. It seems it went from the director of the department to the vendor to Finance to the Commission. As I read this that’s not the proper procedure. The Law Department was bypassed, Procurement was bypassed, the Administrator was bypassed. Can you help me out please, sir? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator. 16 Mr. Russell: Is Mark here? Mark, can you help us with this please? Mr. Johnson: It went through our standard feature so it should have hit every one of those steps as it went through for approval. Mr. Lockett: Are you familiar with Section 1-10-56 that deals with sole-source procurement? Mr. Johnson: Not off the top of my head. I couldn’t recite it, no. Mr. Lockett: Did you use the same procedure in requesting these vehicles as you have in the past when you requested vehicles? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. Lockett: You did not have Procurement negotiate? If it was over $20,000 you didn’t go to the Administrator? It was just between you, the vendor and Finance. Is that the way you did it before? Mr. Johnson: No, sir, we went and requested a price from the vendor because we were going for a sole-source because it’s the same type of asset for commonality. That is one of the justifications for sole-source. We generated an agenda item and as part of that agenda item process it goes through Procurement, Finance, the Administrator, Legal and then gets placed on the agenda. Mr. Lockett: Can I stop you right now? Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Would you please take a look at Section 1-10-56 that deals with sole-source procurement --- Mr. MacKenzie: Sure I’d be happy to. Mr. Lockett: --- because what I have is not in agreement with what I’m being told now. Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to take a look. I actually don’t have that provision in front of me. Would you like me take a look at it and get back --- Mr. Lockett: It’s online. The Clerk: What item is that? Mr. Lockett: I have a copy here. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir. 17 Mr. Lockett: Dealing with sole-source procurement what is the procedures to be followed there in accordance with 1-10-56? Mr. MacKenzie: I think what you’re referring to is probably Section D the Procurement Director shall conduct a negotiation as to term of sole-source. Mr. Lockett: I’m also concerned with A, B, C, D and E. Mr. MacKenzie: With respect to some of the approval processes it’s my understanding a lot of that is actually done through the approval agenda system. I do recall seeing this item come through the system and approved it as to form. Obviously I didn’t do a check to see if all the other steps were done because that’s not a part of our approval process. But the agenda approval system does have it go through the other steps in the process. Mr. Lockett: Well, would you believe it if I told you that these steps were not utilized because I have documentation that shows what was done. And when Commissioner Mason queried the director at a committee meeting he received a very flippant response because the documentation wasn’t there. And in after the fact certain information was requested that should’ve been done up front. And would you believe Procurement had not had access to this? Mr. MacKenzie: I would have to look into the facts. I have --- Mr. Lockett: Well, I’m, Mr. MacKenzie, I’m telling what I know but I would like to, Mr. Johnson, why wasn’t proper procedure followed? This is, we’re dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars here and the Administrator can only approve up to $20,000. Anything more than that has to come to the Commission. Mr. Johnson: Sir, it is before the Commission number one and I believe that I followed the proper protocol. Mr. Lockett: Well, I would like to make it part of the record Section 1-10-56 of the Procurement Code and I would like to show that those steps that should be followed. I’d like those to be highlighted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: In our workbook here it shows on the back it is reviewed and approved by the Finance, Procurement, the law, the Administrator and the Clerk of Commission. The proposal by International dated August 11, 2011 is prepared for Augusta Richmond County city. Gerri Sams the Director. So apparently it went directly to Geri Sams? Mr. Johnson: No, it was sent to me. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. 18 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 1-10-56 says this is in B. Before any item may be obtained under the provisions of this section however the requisitioning agency which would be you Solid Waste Environment must accompany his requisition for the order with a statement specifying in reasonable detail, the reason why I asked you the question, reasons why the items should be procured by sole-source. And what you said to me is you went off of gut check. And I told you a gut check for $500,000 is not going to work for me. And that’s the reason why I asked you for a cost analysis. So from that standpoint the reason shall be in writing and shall be attached to the requisition at the time it is transmitted to the procurement officer. My question is was it ever transmitted to the procurement officer? Mr. Johnson: Okay --- Mr. Mason: Yes? Mr. Johnson: --- the agenda item was transmitted to the procurement office. Mr. Mason: I’m speaking, I’m speaking and I don’t want to cut you off but I only have so much time but I’m speaking specifically to what the regulation said and was that attached. Was that requisition attached to the procurement officer or did you do the procurement yourself. Because based on this the procurement officer is the only one authorized to procure goods especially when you’re talking about a sole-source. Mr. Johnson: Sir, we can’t procure it until it’s approved because it’s over $20,000. Mr. Mason: Right so --- Mr. Johnson: No requisition has gone out, no purchase order has gone out. Those would go through after it’s approved by the body. Mr. Mason: So you just told me you weren’t familiar with 1-10-56. Mr. Johnson: No, you asked me if a requisition had gone out and a requisition has not gone out because it has not been approved. Mr. Mason: Where was your written justification when you brought it before this body? Because you brought it before the body in committee. Mr. Johnson: The written justification would be the agenda item. Mr. Mason: No, no, no, no, no. That’s not according to 1-10-56. If I could, Mr. Chairman, if I can bring up procurement, or somebody from procurement to see if proper procedures. Who’s here, anybody? Yes. Mr. Chairman the reason why I’m concerned with this because we are in litigation on a number of different things through procurement. So if it’s a procurement issue we need to get procurement straight. If it’s an issue or somebody outside of 19 the department doing something they don’t have any business we need to get them straight. The bottom line, there’s a disconnect here somewhere. Was this vetted through your office, procurement office? Mr. Administrator did you approve off on this with the I think just a couple of weeks ago we adhered to a policy that we would do and add in some things that you buy off of on and sign off on. Did that happen, Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: It went through the normal process of the (unintelligible) agenda and my office signed off on that. I do not know if I specifically did or not. Mr. Mason: So this process was approved through your office is what you’re saying? Mr. Russell: We approved bringing forth the agenda item to allow us to purchase these vehicles. Yes. Mr. Mason: Okay, now I’m sure you’re pretty familiar with 1-10-56. Correct? Mr. Russell: Obviously not as familiar as you are. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: (inaudible) have an in depth discussion there. Mr. Mason: We can do that. I mean --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: (inaudible) with other issues. Mr. Russell: Yeah, I mean if you like for us to revisit the entire issue I’d be more than happy to recommend that we send it back to committee. Mr. Mason: I just need it done straight before it comes up here. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s fine. Can I get a motion to send it to committee? Mr. Hatney: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor vote by the regular sign. Mr. Lockett: Madam Clerk, what is the motion? The Clerk: To refer back to committee. Mr. Jackson votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 19, Madam Clerk. 20 The Clerk: FINANCE 19. Motion to approve the Reynolds Street Parking Deck Management Agreement and the Conference Center Parking Lease. (Approved by Finance Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple things I wanted to say. I feel much better that we own the air space now but –-- Mr. Mason: We do? Mr. Lockett: --- Mr. Administrator. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: You know and I say again it seems we are giving away the company store. We’re getting into many, many long term engagements and I really don’t think that we are getting our money’s worth. And I have some questions about whether we are getting the best return on the taxpayer’s money when it comes to this particular agreement. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before but this time I think I might be right. Mr. Russell: Let me assure you that after over three years of negotiation and working on this project for a lot longer than that to come to fruition I’m not going to give away the taxpayer’s dollars. You know I’m as stingy with those as anybody in this room and I feel pretty proud of that particular fact. I think you’re aware of that. What you’ve got though is a situation where I in my professional opinion think that we have put forth a good opportunity for us to continue to grow the city and move forward with the ideas we have and in the resources we have to do that. And that’s our best recommendation, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? Commissioner Aitken. Mr. Aitken: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d really like to make a substitute motion on this and send it back to committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s going to be a motion because there’s no motion yet. Mr. Aitken: I’d like to make a motion we send it back to committee because I don’t think we’ve had enough dialog and I think as we do grow this city Mr. Russell, we haven’t had a whole lot of input from you on this bench about this very long term very significant very important milestone in our city as far as how we’re going to do business. And I think some people from what I’ve seen and what I feel have been left out of the process and discussions. So I really would like to make that And I think we at least owe it to those that are there. motion to send it back, have discussion from Downtown Development Authority and the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Those that have an impact in our city too because to 21 inclusiveness we need to see in this city is across the board. And it’s not nothing against Savannah River, LLC. I think the dialog should be there. If that’s the best bit for us let’s do it. But I think in the process let’s look at it a little more closely and say hey, because you can see it’s not a full buy in on that. And I think something as major as the TEE Center and the Parking Deck in that area of our city is very strategic in the planning in the future of the city. Mr. Johnson: I’ll second that motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell. If I may ask Mr. Russell a question? I believe we are operating the parking deck now on a temporary agreement. Mr. Russell: That we are, sir. Mr. Brigham: I believe that temporary agreement ends at the end of this month? Mr. Russell: It was a 30 day agreement, yes, sir. I don’t know the specific ending date but it would be prior to you making a decision. Mr. Brigham: It would be prior to our next meeting. Mr. Russell: Yes. Mr. Brigham: Are we going to close the parking deck if we’re going to send this back to committee? Mr. Russell: I don’t --- Mr. Brigham: Since we don’t have a contract to operate it? Mr. Russell: One would think that we’ve got an issue there that we’d have to deal with, yes. to extend the Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Aitken, could you amend your motion current contract --- Mr. Aitken: So moved. for an additional 30 days. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- Mr. Aitken: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Would you second that? Mr. Johnson: I’ll second that. 22 Mr. Brigham: I still have some other concerns with this. I believe everybody up here had an opportunity to speak on this issue last week in committee. If we’re going to send it back to committee I don’t know what additional information’s going to come out. Has somebody got some additional information that we need to be aware of at this time? If not why are we going back to committee? It floors me. I thought we did this in committee, everybody had a chance to question it, everybody was in agreement with the decision and now we’re going back to committee and I don’t understand. I’m trying to understand. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Chair? Call for the question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson had his hand up. Mr. Hatney: Put your hand down and call for the question. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, maybe we can go forward with that. I do have some heartburn with it and I can’t support it under the current proposal that was submitted. So it don’t matter to me how we do it. I think there’s some issues there and I can’t support the current proposal. I think there’s some things that we need to look at in there overall for the longevity of this contract and for the betterment of the use of that particular parking deck. So now I mean you all can vote how you want to but I just can’t support that particular item. Like I said I need to look at the options again, so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator. Mr. Russell: You know this goes back a long ways. And we set this path in motion a long time ago. We made decisions and this group made decisions back years ago that put us where we are today where these are the people that own the property underneath our parking deck. These are the people we decided several years ago that were going to operate the parking deck. We’ve had numerous opportunities for people to have conversations about who parks there and who doesn’t park there. We’ve had numerous conversations to decide whether or not it was a good thing or not. This committee’s approved up until everything we’ve done until today. This is just the final agreement of a three year process that gets us where we need to be to operate this deck and to continue to move forward. I’m too sure what other additional information you can ask, what other additional things you can bring forward or what other things you got. You’ve got parking spaces that we’re charging people to park in that we get the money from. You’ve got parking spaces that are there that support buildings that we built and things that we do. And at this point to go backwards or even stall in my mind is counterproductive. I mean you set this path several years ago. This is the end result of the path that was set before a lot of you even got here but this is where we’re at. There’s no other people to negotiate with. There’s no other group that’s going to do this. I mean that was decided before so you know I’m not too sure what dialog we need to have with DDA about this parking deck. I agree we need to talk to DDA about parking downtown but this is separate and distinct from the whole picture 23 there in my mind. The sports people and stuff I mean that’s we need to bring people downtown I agree but that’s not a conversation that involves this operation agreement in my mind. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion’s been called so called for the question and the substitute motion we’ll make the vote on the primary motion. Mr. Jackson: Could you repeat the motion, please? The Clerk: Yes, sir, the motion was to refer back to committee for further discussion with the DDA, the Downtown Development Authority, the CVB and that the current contract be extended for a 30-day period. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All vote by the usual sign. Mr. Mason: We’re sending this back. Is that what the deal is? The Clerk: Yes, sir, you’re sending it back and extending the current contract for 30 days. Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 23, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 23. Motion to approve reallocation of $1,250.000 from Martin Luther King Drive (SPLOST VI-District 2), and $1,075,100 from Old Savannah Road (Gordon Highway to 56 Highway) (SPLOST III-District 2) to Hyde Park/Wilkerson Gardens Drainage Improvements Project to fully-fund design and initial phases of land acquisition and resident relocations. Also approve adoption of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 for this Project as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to hear Mr. Ladson explain that agenda item. Mr. Ladson: Commissioners, just to basically give you a brief background on the current agenda item here. About a year and a half ago we came before the Commission to put the plan to do some improvements in Hyde Park which includes relocating the residents in Hyde Park. And also doing some improvements to the Wilkerson Gardens Project. Just to kind of back up a little bit the two projects where separate projects. We started working on the Wilkerson Garden Project and when we started doing the, going through the hydrology and the hydraulics we 24 noticed that any improvements to Wilkerson Gardens will impact Hyde Park. With that we also had the program $2 million dollars into Hyde Park in the SPLOST VI. So what we did we combined the two projects and with the two projects as stated any impact and any improvements to the Wilkerson Gardens will increase the flow rate and impact Hyde Park. So Hyde Park at the time was flooding and still is flooding. Okay, if we increase the flow rate it would even flood even more. So our recommendation from the Engineering Department was to create a regional detention pond for Hyde Park and a plan was to assess the properties and relocate the Hyde Park residents. So we did that, came before the Commission and they, there was an issue with how the project was going to be funded. Our plan was to take out a low interest loan and but the issue was on how that, those funds were going to be paid back. So we went back to the drawing board, we looked at FEMA, GEMA and we could not get funds there. So what we did was there were two projects in District II, Martin Luther King Blvd and also Old Savannah Road. Well we had funds there but we got those projects completed, resurfaced with the resurfacing funds. So that left about $2.3 million dollars. So what we suggested was to take those funds and reallocate those funds and put it into the Hyde Park Project. That would give, put the project budget right at $4.3 million dollars. That would fund the engineering and it would also fund half of the land acquisition and relocation. The process would normally take probably at least about five years to acquire the property and relocate people. This would actually put us back into another SPLOST and we can actually go into another Phase II to fully fund the land acquisition and relocation of residents there. So that’s where we’re at on pretty much on top of things. So that brings us here to trying to get that approved and move forward with the project. Otherwise we really can’t move forward. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Abie, of course through the course of those meetings we had in the community starting back in May, well, March, I think, April of last year when we originally discussed the regional detention pond with the community to get their feedback on it. And in that particular meeting we had a lot of success with the community and their feedback on that as well as the meeting I think we had in May giving them I guess a second reading on how we were planning to go to GEMA and FEMA to apply for the dollars, ask for the consensus of the community at that time and they all were all on board with this project. If I’m not mistaken do you have a list of? Mr. Johnson: There was a sign in sheet at both meetings. At the initial meetings there were a hundred and I think it was 103 parties there. And I think it was pretty much somewhat almost not quite the same in the second meeting. But the consensus at the meeting was to that they wanted to move forward with the project. Mr. Johnson: And I will say I understand that everybody were not able to make that meeting by the time. And this was not something that the city’s is implementing to take anybody’s property. I’ve heard several things being said over the course of the week that they’re coming in, the city’s going to, they wanted to take your property it would be imminent domain. They did not issue that. This is actually a resolution basically to move forward with actually relocating the people and doing it fairly in a fairly process. People will be compensated for their property but this is going to be a two-fold fix for this community as well as the surrounding area. 25 You all understand how difficult it is when you’re riding Gordon Highway and you have downpour of rain in a course of 5 minutes or so. It gets very treacherous out there with flooding and there have been many accidents there near the underpass there Peach Orchard Road. So we have major issues there. This is not just this particular area but you’re talking Wilkerson Gardens, Olive Road, Virginia Subdivision. Everything in that surrounding area is under water. And this Hyde Park is the lowest point. It’s nothing you can do there to fix that problem. It’s always going to be the lowest point. I understand those that have concerns there and they’re very valid concerns but sometimes we have to cut our losses and do what’s best for the greater good of the environment of the community as a whole. And that’s what we’re here to do today. This is not, of course I understand if some issues some people have some slight heartburn about it but this is the most viable solution to fix this problem. And with that being said we have added language in it that’s going to make sure things are done in decency and order and fairly. So we have related that to the community, I have been instructed to move forward and that’s what I did. I got with the engineers and I’d like to give them credit because they worked very, very hard on this project in trying to get this whole plan worked out. So, Abie, I don’t know if there’s anything else that you’d like to add but I just wanted to make that statement to those out there. Mr. Johnson: Yeah, at these two meetings Mr. Chester Wheeler was also present also did a presentation and also gave out handouts on how the actual relocation and compensation would take place. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Abie, what was the notification for the residents and land owners? Mr. Johnson: There were letters that were sent out to the, if I recall, there were letters that were sent out to the homeowners. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is it based on the property zip because my family owns property in there and we never received the letter so that’s just, Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Abie, two questions. One, is this an all or nothing deal. I mean everybody’s gone or everybody stays or it’s not a, I mean how are we looking at this. Mr. Johnson: What, I mean the only viable solution like I said Hyde Park is going to flood. It’s at the lowest point. And if we have to improve Wilkerson Gardens they maybe where, we’ll have to buy, we’ll still have to buy some property to put a detention pond in. Mr. Mason: Okay, so it sounds like you’re saying --- Mr. Johnson: This is --- Mr. Mason: it’s all. If you’re going to do it it’s all. Mr. Johnson: Yes, I mean --- 26 Mr. Mason: All right so let’s get down to that. The next thing is, is that I’m interested in how you plan to make them whole at the end of the day. What is the plan? I think you need to bring that out here. What is the plan to make them whole because that is a huge concern to the individuals who are living out there and they need some clarity moving forward as to what the plan is. Mr. Johnson: Okay, then Chester Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler: Good evening, Commissioners. I will attempt to give an example of how your relocation will work for the homeowner. It’s a simple solution. At the end of the day the families must be made whole. If a family owns their house free of a lien and I’ll give you a value. Let’s say the house is valued at $20,000 and it’s a two bedroom house. We are obligated to try to find them safe and decent housing in a two bedroom house. If we’re not able to find them a two bedroom house we have two choices. We can build them a two bedroom house or we can put them in a three bedroom house. Now the example was a $20,000 value. If it costs the city $100,000 just for the construction or acquisition of that new property than we pay the $100,000 up front, we buy the home that the family presently had for the $20,000 and they must pay us the $20,000 down toward our $100,000 acquisition. We then would deed over to them free and clear this new $100,000 structure. They get it without any bills. We also pay all of their relocation costs. We will come back the house that we have purchased we would then demolish it. If a person owns a house and it has a $10,000 mortgage on it at the end of the day when we complete the foretasted transaction they cannot have any more than the $10,000 lien that was on it in the beginning. So there will never be a situation where they, I’ll give you an example, where they have more unless they chose, if the comparable was a three bedroom house and they said we don’t want a three bedroom house anymore. We want a four bedroom house. Well now you are choosing to upgrade and you have to absorb the cost to upgrade from the comparable to your new house. So if it costs you an additional $25,000 to go from a three bedroom to a four you now will have to be able to have a mortgage of $25,000 because that was your choice to upgrade. And for the renters, for a renter under the law you are required to pay the difference in the rent where they are paying now plus the difference in the estimated utilities for a period of 42-months. So if they’re paying $400.00 rent and the comparable rent that they relocate to is now $650.00 there is a $200.00 difference. So now the city has to pay them the $200.00 plus the rent differential, I mean the utility differential for a period of 42 months less the obligation. Okay, in the rental property there are two transactions. One I just spoke of for the tenant. Mr. Speaker: If somebody owns their rental property, can you explain that? Mr. Mason: Yep. Mr. Wheeler: Okay the, in the rental property there are two transactions. One I just spoke of for the tenant. Mr. Mason: Okay. Mr. Johnson: The other one for the landlord they will be paid the appraised value of the property. There are two appraisals done. There is one appraisal which is the first one and then 27 we come back and have a second appraisal which that person goes back and looks to see whether the first appraisal was fair and just. And then we pay the appraised on from the second appraisal, first appraisal. There was no adjustment, if it was second adjusted then they have to come back and justify this is what I saw different and that’s why my fee has changed. Mr. Mason: Now, Mr. Wheeler, my final question would be this. There’s been some mention about potentially moving or having the opportunity to move into some of the newer homes that was built or that’s being built in the Laney Walker area. Has that been under consideration or is that been thrown out there as a potential plan? Mr. Wheeler: That’s an option. They have an option of where they go. So they can go to house that has already been constructed and anyplace in the county. But if they chose for us to build them a new house in Laney Walker/Bethlehem then that’s what we’ll have to do. But it has to be in the comparable size. So if it costs a $110 for a 1200-sqaure foot house we have to pay $110 and the house is theirs. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What if they chose Columbia County? Mr. Wheeler: They can go to Columbia County. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we pay? Mr. Wheeler: Absolutely. Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Guilfoyle the Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Wheeler: I had one family that chose to go to Atlanta, Georgia. That law, that federal law does not force you to stay anywhere. They have the right to go anywhere that they so choose to live. And we can’t force them to go to Laney Walker, South Augusta, Harrisburg and anywhere else. That’s their choice. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Wheeler, I have not had the privy over the last years to be involved with this Hyde Park. Some of the other Commissioners have so I’m catching the tail end of this. And a matter of fact Commissioner Jackson and myself rode through the neighborhood today and just started doing a count of the vacant houses which is a total of 66 and two commercial buildings. But we stopped at the end of Florida Road and spoke with some of the residents. Very nice people, they were cordial as well as and likewise we were too. We just wanted to hear their concerns. And from what I found out they don’t want to move. I know that they’re left in the dark because just like in here has yet to be determined on the dwellings. We’ve actually been leading from what I can gather today in our conversation is that they’re being pushed and pulled with this keeps coming up on a commission floor and they only thing I asked Commissioner to do if we could push it forward so we could hear the residents. Right now I can’t make a decision at this point because I’m being pushed and pulled inside if it needs to go forward because we do have to look out for the residents of Hyde Park. 28 Mr. Wheeler: With all due respect, Commissioner, my role is limited to relocation. I have no response or opinion on Hyde Park and the other issues. My job is if you approve it my job is to move those families out and that alone is your own opinion. Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. Mr. Bowles: The most political answer I’ve ever seen. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Guilfoyle: This question would be for Abie. Is there any other alternatives that we could do as far as for the retention without disturbing the whole neighborhood? Because what we’re doing is displacing residents that’s grown up together all their lives. Mr. Ladson: I think the issue is actually they’re going to flood. I mean if they’re down there they’re going to flood. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Mr. Ladson: I mean over the period of time we’ve gotten calls from certain residents out there when it rains a lot. And we’ve actually seen the water come up. So from engineering standpoint I mean it’s the low point and that’s where the water’s going to go at. I mean you could possibly do some other things but you’re going to pay just as much money or more. Mr. Guilfoyle: I imagine we have a lot of Hyde Park residents in the house right now? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett had a question. I’d like to get him --- Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- and then Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Lockett: Abie, I think you partly answered part of my question. The fact is there is a need for the people in Hyde Park to move and you have as already said, I heard you last week in committee. That’s why I pulled it because I wanted you to come up and go through it again. The need is there. I can understand when you live in a community for forty or fifty years and you don’t want to divorce yourself from the community. But this is one of those situations where you have no choice. My other question I guess I want to ask this young man here is you commented that if you have a three bedroom house and you decided you wanted to move up to a four bedroom house you explained what would happen. But now since I would imagine many of the families that may have a three bedroom home now the kids are grown and gone and they want to downsize. What happens if that should happen? Mr. Wheeler: We would still put them in a smaller house and it still would be free of a lien if they don’t have one. They still would get it and if they don’t owe anything it’ll be theirs free. We sign it over and it’s a done deal. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hatney. 29 Mr. Hatney: Mr. Chester and Administrator. Where is he? The, I’ve got several calls and complaints and everything and I didn’t get the impression that folk didn’t want to be relocated. They wanted a fair price for their property. That’s what I heard. That’s all I heard. Mr. Wheeler: You know to be --- Mr. Hatney: Let me say this now. They were saying that their property has been devalued maybe six of 70% over the last three years. Mr. Wheeler: And that’s why the Administrator has instructed us to use the federal regulation because irrespective of your value you’re going to be made whole. If that $100,000 house that I was talking about, if it’s valued at $10,000 at the end of the day you’ll still be in a $100,000 house and you won’t owe anything. If it’s valued at $50,000 at the end of the day you’ll still be in a $100,000 house and the $50,000 value you must apply to the new house. So it doesn’t matter the value it really doesn’t because you have to be made whole. Mr. Hatney: Okay, this was more geared towards to those persons who own property but are not a resident. They’re complaining that their property one’s saying it was probably worth thirty some thousand and now it’s dropped from thirty some down to six and now ya’ll want to buy it. Mr. Wheeler: The largest --- Mr. Hatney: That’s been the complaint, that’s all. Mr. Wheeler: --- do a fair --- Mr. Hatney: They want a fair value. Mr. Wheeler: --- appraisal on the property. That’s the only thing that we have. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Mason: Move for approval. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: I would just like to ask for the record. How many homeowners that live in Hyde Park are here today? Mr. Russell: There’s about twenty-six, sir. Twenty-seven? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Brigham. 30 Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Brigham: All this is great. I still hadn’t heard a total budget, I hadn’t heard a total funding source, I’d love to hear some more answers. Mr. Russell: I think as we’ve dealt with --- Mr. Brigham: --- and I think these people would like to hear some more answers. Mr. Russell: --- Hyde Park over the past years you know I think we’ve finally come up with what I think consider to be a solution that benefits the individuals that live there and that benefit the people that live around there, the drainage issues that we’ve dealt with. You know it’s without the benefit of the experience we’ve got a situation where the property values have been devalued simply because of whatever the rumor innuendo has been over the years. The flooding is obvious and it’s one of those catcher’s catch can unfortunate problems that it doesn’t quite flood bad enough for FEMA to come in there but you’ve got to buy a boat to get home, which doesn’t make any sense to me but that’s just the federal regulations that we live in here basically. This is the first stage of that project. I think Abie gave you some numbers. There’ll be some additional phases coming through. We’re looking at SPLOST dollars there. I think we can give you some projections. Abie, can you give them some projections on that? But once again you’re going to have to do it phased in. It’s not something we’re going to do. But I think we’ve waited way too long not to go ahead and get started. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: For the record that’s the first time I’ve ever got applause from anybody from Hyde Park. Just for the record there I’d like to make a note of that there. But you know I think we’ve got the starting plan there and I think we need to go ahead and get started. Mr. Hatney: Call for the question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Brigham: I’d like to finish asking my questions first. Mr. Hatney: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question’s been called. If we want to call for the question Commissioner Brigham was in the middle of his questioning. We’ll have a vote whether the question will be called or not. Mr. Brigham: There has been previous allocations to Hyde Park. Are those funds still available, unavailable or what? 31 Mr. Ladson: I think you’re referring to the $2 million dollars that was allocated in SPLOST VI. Those funds are still there. Mr. Brigham: So are we talking about, okay, are we looking at $4 million dollars? Mr. Ladson: So with the transfer of the $2.3 million dollars I think it is then that would total, our total budget at that time would be $4.3 million dollars. Mr. Brigham: And the total cost to complete this project is in excess --- Mr. Ladson: The total cost --- Mr. Brigham: --- of $11 million dollars? Mr. Ladson: --- let me give you a breakdown of that. To do the design, complete design it would be $200,000. For the land acquisition and resident reallocation that would be $8 million dollars. And for the construction of the pond and the drainage improvement is Hyde, not in Hyde Park but in Wilkerson Gardens plus the pond that would be about $10 million dollars. Mr. Brigham: And the grand total? I’m sorry. Mr. Ladson: A grand total of $18.2 million dollars. Mr. Brigham: And we’ve got less than a fourth of that. Mr. Ladson: Well, for the reallocation we got half of that. Mr. Brigham: We’ve got less than a fourth of what you, of the total budget. Mr. Ladson: For construction and everything. But the construction can be phased. I mean we do it all the time. Mr. Brigham: And what is your procedure to buy out people first or --- Mr. Ladson: We definitely would have to acquire the property first. That’s the process. Mr. Brigham: That would have to be the first thing. That would even come before the design? Mr. Ladson: Well, the design you can do some of these things along with each other. So the design, we’d start the design on the pond first and we would then, we have actually started doing the design and acquiring property somewhat at the same time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question’s been called. All vote by the regular signs. For the record, Ms. Bonner, I had to abstain because I own property over there. My family does and until the Administrator decides to accept that as a donation. 32 Mr. Hatney: You’re going to donate it right so you can go on and vote. Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Mr. Bowles abstains. Motion carries 6-3-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I ask Chester what the payout for just landowners? No, I’m kidding. Mr. Russell: We already do have on record your offer to donate that property. So just for the record, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now first of all I’d like to say thanks to the homeowners and those that stood behind me and supported this --- Mr. Hatney: Point of order, Mr. Chair. We’re not supposed to go no further with the discussion now that it’s been done. Mr. Johnson: I asked for a personal --- Mr. Hatney: Yeah, not after the vote’s been made though. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s fine with me. I agreed with it. Next item, Madam Clerk. Mr. Johnson: Thanks anyway, Mr. Chairman. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 26. Motion to approve that the implementation of the reorganization plan of Augusta Utilities Department be set with the approval of the Commission at the next meeting; that the Asst. Directors’ positions above the Administrator’s authority be delayed for two pay periods; and that the retroactive pay for Ms. Beazley, the Superintendent II Water Production, be deleted from the plan at this time. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 10, 2011) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, if it’s okay I’ll ask Mr. Wiedmeier to go on and make his presentation and then I’ll comment if that’s okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure. 33 Mr. Wiedmeier: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission. At the committee meetings I gave out details on our proposed reorganization. And the only comments I would like to add to that is when we first started discussing reorganization about a year ago the only direction I got from the Administrator was to create an efficient organization. We think we’ve done that by reducing 52 budgeted positions and about $750,000 in salary savings after our projected increases. And now the proposed pay increases are not what I want to give the people but these have been recommendations by an outside consultant primarily driven by the reorganization or internal equity issues. There’s also a, we’re asking for reclassification of 80 positions or lowest paid positions to help us stem the employee turnover we’re dealing with. Where we are now is I’ve had eight senior staff that have gone home and I don’t how to go back to where we were. So I’m asking for your favorable consideration. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett? Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wiedmeier, I have the utmost respect for you and all your employees in the Utilities Department. Number one is I cannot and will not support this even though I realize that you all are entitled to it and many of your people are underpaid as are another 2,000 plus city employees. I don’t support the reorganization and for you to say that 52 budgeted positions have been eliminated, how many of those 52 positions actually had a real live person in it? Mr. Wiedmeier: Eight but there were of those 52 positions there were probably around twenty that we would not have filled. But the others were active positions. This has been in progress for a year and we stopped filling positions in anticipation of this reorganization so. Mr. Lockett: I can understand that but in actuality eight people were replaced and I see on here you’ve got one, two, three, six people if my math is correct anticipated to give 95-plus thousand dollar pay increase. Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: I mean we have people that have been with this government for ages and don’t even make $19,000 a year. Rod Powell the former HR Director said the only fair way to do these pay increases is do it incrementally and do everybody at one time. Give them at least a cost of living allowance or something. Morale at this government now is at rock bottom and it’s getting deeper every day. When we take furlough days from people that haven’t received a pay increase and we refuse to give back the money for those three days we come up with a budget surplus of $1.6 million dollars my heart would not let me support this even though I realized that you’ve done an outstanding job, you’re people are entitled to this but until we can come up with a remedy that’s going to take care of all of our employees I cannot support the pay increases of a few. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Is there a motion? Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Tom, I just wanted to bring up. I am in support of raises but the timing is totally off. We both know that. What we’re saying is this is not no different than what happened 34 a couple months ago. You did your homework up front, you did your investigation and had it audited. What this is going be what I foresee is a catalyst for every other department to cut there unfunded positions to be giving their department raises. Now you and talked last week about incentive. There’s no incentive that you can give employees. Instead of getting the money on the front sight get your department to where it’s running efficient, make the necessary cuts you do and I’ll be the first to stand in line during the next budget that offered the raises. Mr. Wiedmeier: The problem with that is you’re asking less people to do more work and with the promise that somewhere out there they may be given a raise. And that, I agree with everything Mr. Lockett said. We’ve got serious morale issues and this situation predates the county wide reorganization. And this something our department has been trying to get done for several years and the people are losing hope. Mr. Guilfoyle: Tom, you could move people up within your organization by different levels without having to come before the Commission is that correct? Mr. Weidmeir: Yes, the Administrator has the authority to do most of what I’m wanting to do but I wanted to make sure the Commission was aware so that we didn’t have a situation that happened a few months ago. Mr. Guilfoyle: That would be the same situation in our hands right now from what I foresee. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to respectfully disagree with my colleague Commissioner Guilfoyle. It’s absolutely not the same situation given the fact that that situation everyone up here claimed they had no knowledge of the raises that were given by Mr. Russell. And they were not brought before committee they were not talked about and we had a budget deficit at that particular time. Here we have a situation where not only did he use the Personnel, Policies and Procedures Manual in the right manner also went above board and brought in a compensation analyst to do desk side audits to make sure he did it by the book. So what we have here we have 44 that was not done by the book that this Commission seemed to be okay with and then we’ve got him doing it by the book and this Commission says no. You’re sending mixed signals to our employees out here. I don’t believe, I believe with you, Mr. Lockett, that the best way to do it is to get everybody at one time. But there’s not a will of this body to do that. You clearly see that. So in my mind to punish those that are deserving to continue to do so as we did with the furlough situation and no raises for the remaining of the folks there’s not a will to do it that way. So now we have no other choice in my mind but to piecemeal. The fact of the matter is this is an enterprise fund. It’s not a part of the budget or excuse me the general fund it does not create a deficit. It doesn’t do any of those things and it was done correctly. What does a person have to do and what’s so sweet about those 44-raises that we let that go? And we don’t address it but everything else that comes up here we’re no, no, no. Mixed signals. Mr. Johnson: Motion to approve. 35 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Hatney: Question, please. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wiedmeier, I personally have no problem with your folks. I just to me it’s just not a good time simply because in the mix of a new budget. To tie that to the budget going forward, I can live with that no problem but to do that now and they just turned down this 6% for them folks. I can support you going forward but I can’t support that right now. Going forward I’m talking about this budget coming up and I could handle that. But right now it’s just it would be hard for me to do that in good conscience. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor. Madam Clerk, would you like to read the motion? The Clerk: The motion is to approve the implementation of the reorganization plan of Augusta Utilities. It be sent with the approval of the Commission at this meeting, that the Asst. Directors’ positions above the Administrators authority be delayed for two pay periods; and that the retroactive pay for Ms. Beazley, The Superintendent II Water Production be deleted from the plan at this time. Mr. Brigham: Roll call vote, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: It’s been asked for a roll call vote. The Clerk: Mr. Aitken. Mr. Aitken: Approve. The Clerk: Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles: No. The Clerk: Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: No. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: No. 36 The Clerk: Mr. Hatney. Mr. Hatney: No. The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: No. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: No. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: No. Motion fails 3-7. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re on Item 30, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: PLANNING 30. Z-11-45 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a petition by Nickie Marks, on behalf of James S. Marks, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing approximately .31 acres and is the southern half of 2317 Washington Road. (part of Tax Map 026-143-00-0) DISTRICT 7 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: George Patty, please. Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, this is a property at 2317 Washington Road and at one time it was two parcels, two adjacent parcels that were part of an old subdivision. I can’t remember the name of it. It’s right west of where the Broad Street the ramp from coming from Old Broad Street it comes into Calhoun Expressway. It’s just beyond that. I’ve got a map here if y’all want to see it. The owners, the applicant has owned it for some time and applied for the rezoning to B-2. And of the lot, the house which is on the western most part of the property was zoned in 37 1978 B-2. I’m not sure but I believe it might have been a B-2 use at that time. And in 2000 the applicant applied for the B-2 zoning that’s being asked for this property today which is the red circumscribed property as you see there and was denied. And in 2002 the property was zoned B- 1 for the applicant. The objection to cut to the chase was based on the traffic safety considerations. You’ve got traffic merging from the ramp coming from Broad Street into 50-60 mph traffic on Calhoun Expressway and a curve. And if you’ve ever done that merge lane and it’s really not a merge lane it just ends and there’s no place to go. So you’ve got a potentially dangerous traffic safety problem there. And you’ve also got another consideration and that is the land uses around there have you know we’ve gone along with B-1 zoning P-1 zoning because we feel that you know there has to be some reasonable use of property afforded. And what you’ve got in there a lot of doctors and professionals as well as like B-1 type businesses. No you do have an old convenience store that’s been there since the 70’s in the proximity of this property. And you’ve got a new Dollar Store that is a B-1 use although it’s the only new construction that’s occurring there. And we’re concerned number one about traffic safety and number that it’s going to be a massive change to the area. If this property gets zoned B-2 you know it sets a precedent, it passes a message that the Commission is willing to do B-2 zoning up there and what is a pretty quaint you know most of these businesses are still in the houses that were residences 20/30 years ago. It’s just going to be, it’s going to set the precedent for a massive change in the land use and the appearance of that area if you approve that. And that’s the reason for the objection. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. George, as it relates to this problem I do understand it is an issue with the I guess the egress into the property if you will? Is it right now this property is zoned B-2. Mr. Patty: B-1. Mr. Johnson: B-1 they’re asking to be B-2. Mr. Patty: Right. Mr. Johnson: How would the impact drastically change from going from a B-1 to a B-2 that they you know if they decide to do something there on that property they still will have to be concerned with the traffic concerns correct? Mr. Patty: Yeah, B-1 is your neighborhood type businesses. These are your light businesses that fit in the neighborhood environments which is sort of this. A B-2 allows a lot of things that generate a lot more traffic than B-1 uses. It allows things like night clubs and bars and you know restaurants and car lots which in this case is what the applicant wants to do. And you know I think there’s a possibility of some sort of conditional zoning on this one to limit the use. I would hope that there would be but it does set a precedent for what else you could think you could do with the surrounding properties. 38 Mr. Johnson: Well, that’s what I was going to ask is there any way we can just do it with the special exception just to operate one particular entity and if that business closed down and it reverts back to its original condition. Mr. Patty: You could do it with conditions. Mr. Johnson: I think that would probably be the most appropriate way to deal with it. Mr. Patty: It does set the precedent and you know the applicant would have to tract his own B-2 which we could do something with so there is a down side of that. But it could be done, yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Patty, can you give this Commission some examples of the difference between a B-1 zoning business and a B-2 zoning business? B-1 would be typically a what? Mr. Patty: Well, B-1 would be neighborhood types businesses, variety stores you know neighborhood grocery stores. I used to say convenience stores or local gas stations but those have evolved so much they’re really B-2 uses today and they’re open all night and that sort of thing so that wouldn’t be a good example. That would be an example for B-2’s. B-1 uses would be seamstress’ shops, law offices and you know things like that that would, it all goes back to the communities of the 50’s and 60’s I guess where you had businesses in neighborhoods and those were the businesses that we thought to be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Brigham: Between Calhoun Expressway and Woodbine Road how many B-2 zonings are there? Mr. Patty: One, the applicant’s. Let me verify that by looking at the map to make sure that’s the correct answer. Almost there. That is the only his, Mr. Mark’s house which unfortunately for him does not include the property he wants to sell cars from. He is the only B- 2 zoning. Actually on the other side of the street there’s one. My map doesn’t go all the way up it goes almost to Woodbine. There’s a B-1 on the other side that’s probably the piano shop I guess. Mr. Brigham: Okay, if this is a trend all of this property could once we start zoning B-2 in there all this property could very easily change very quickly, could it not? Mr. Patty: That’s absolutely true. Mr. Brigham: Okay. I’m very mixed about this particular zoning. This is my district, this zoning has been before this Commission before has been turned down before. This very lot has been turned down before. I don’t think we want to do a precedence of, I’ve got plenty of major commercial business that are B-2 businesses and I don’t think that we want to bring it all 39 the way down to Calhoun Expressway. I am very concerned about this one. I have, if it’s a proposal to do it without any kind of limitations on it I’m going to be vehemently opposed to it. If we’re going to look at limitations on this one with some reversionary I’m not real happy with that. I would think that if y’all were putting it in y’all’s neighborhood y’all would not be real happy with that either and I would still have some concerns. And I think that this Commission needs to really think real hard about this one. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Patty, did you have any consultation with our traffic engineer in regards to this? Mr. Patty: Yes. Mr. Lockett: Well, what did he have to say? Mr. Patty: I wish he was here he could answer that. I can tell you in 2002 when we talked to the traffic engineer then he was adamantly opposed to it. When I talked to Steve about an hour ago he said it’s in a sweeping curve the sight distance on Washington Road really isn’t that bad. The problem with the traffic on Broad Street coming to what they think is a merge ramp but in reality it stops you half, you have to stop. You cannot see the oncoming traffic on the inside lane of Washington Road unless you stop. And that is right before you get to the corner of his property which you know has got to create an unsafe situation. I can tell you when we went through this in 2002 the traffic engineer at that time was adamantly opposed to it. Mr. Lockett: Well, basically your conversation with him is your recommendation to change or does it remain the same? Mr. Patty: It remains the same. Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Patty, I’ve absorbed all you’ve tried to say or you said. The question is from my information I don’t believe this is a situation where it’s going to be a regular car lot. no more than six or eight cars at This is going to be a controlled situation where there will be no one time there. It’s not like you can put 150/200 cars there. With that control agreement in place I really don’t have no problem with it because I’ve gone up there and looked at that and I don’t see where that would pose no problem, with that condition in there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith:do a conditional Could we listen to what he has to, make a motion that we zoning request and based on what, I’ve talked with Mr. Marks and he’s explained to me --- 40 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s find out what those conditions are going to be. Mr. Smith: --- well, he, based on four to six cars and employ two to three people. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hunter, would you like to address this? Mr. Hunter: Yes, if you don’t mind. I know Mr. Patty has gotten his choice but I just want to show you some of these neighborhood businesses. This is the business across the street from this which is some type of variety store. It’s already a place selling used cars across the street called Force Motor Company that they’re selling. This is an example of the cars they’re selling in front of this business across the way. Turner Keyboards is there, Dollar General is there. This is not a quaint neighborhood type of everybody working in a little house neighborhood store that people are. And there’s an attorney there and there is some other people. Most of this section of Washington Road houses have been torn down they’re coming into buildings like this which aren’t particular attractive. Mr. Marks, he only wants to operate and if you looked at the lot it’s not very large. He doesn’t want I mean it’s not going to be a huge car conditional zoning exception to grant it to B-2 with the lot. We would like to get a stipulation that it revert back if he sells it and that it be for a single use as a car lot and no other use. We don’t have a problem with those stipulations. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: I’ll, if that was a motion I’ll second it to do it under those exceptions. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Hunter, I believe Mr. Marks is currently also selling cars in his B-2 zoning. Is he not? Mr. Hunter: Yes, he has --- Mr. Brigham: But it did not appear that Ford, that Force Motor Company had a real large inventory. It looked like to me it was one car. Mr. Hunter: When this picture was taken there was I don’t know how many cars but I’ll stipulate there was one. But there have been more than one car there. Mr. Brigham: It hadn’t been a large number of cars there. Mr. Hunter: No, it has not been. Mr. Brigham: And if I’m not mistaken Mr. Marks has had as many as two or three cars on his property that he was selling at one time. Mr. Hunter: That’s probably correct. 41 Mr. Brigham: You know I don’t appreciate you just showing the commercial buildings because I know this stretch of road relatively well since I travel it right regular. Mr. Hunter: Yes, sir. Mr. Brigham: I would imagine about 25% of it is commercial buildings and the rest of it, this other 75% are cottage industries in houses that have been converted. And I think it’s a fairly close and a lot of those houses on the opposite side of the road are still being occupied as residences. Are they not? Mr. Hunter: I’m trying to think of that stretch of road and I’m not sure that any are still occupied as residences. Mr. Brigham: I beg to differ with you --- Mr. Hunter: But I --- Brigham: --- since I know my voters I think I know where they --- Mr. Hunter: I’m sure you do. Mr. Brigham: --- exactly where they live. Mr. Hunter: I wouldn’t want to dispute you on that no. Mr. Brigham: I want to hear the conditions. I still hadn’t heard the conditions that I’m acceptable to. The Clerk: Madam Clerk, could you repeat the conditions if you were able to? The Clerk: Yes sir. The approval will be a conditional approval with no more than six to eight cars on the lot, two to three employees that it be reverted back to a B-1 if property is sold. Is that? Mr. Brigham: I want to hear that if we put more than eight cars on the lot that it’s going to be reverted back then. I don’t want this to be a full-fledged car lot. Mr. Marks: I’ll do it if you buy the first car. Mr. Brigham: Good try. Mr. Smith: After my conversation with Mr. Marks he’s been on the table and that’s about what he said. And I believe he’ll stick by it. Mr. Brigham: I understand you’ve had some problems in the past particularly about some signage and the pushing of the envelope and I want it to be understood that if we’re going 42 to do this that we’re going to if we find any violation that’s going to cause a reversion it’s going to revert right then. Mr. Smith: Well, we do that with everybody on a zoning. Mr. Guilfoyle: Call for the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question’s been called. Just out of curiosity is there any way he could, are we going to prevent being able to what do you call it when you combine two parcels together to create one big B-2 rather than two separate B-2’s. Mr. Patty: It’s actually one parcel I believe. At one time it was two separate lots when they were residential lots. I believe it was two. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Isn’t there a fortune teller, Mr. Marks? Are you the fortune teller? I was going to say what’d she say about Allen coming to vote? All right, we got a motion and a second. The Clerk: No, sir, I need the second. I missed, Mr. Johnson, he seconded it. Mr. Johnson: I’ll second it, Grady. The Clerk: Grady, Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Yeah, I made the motion. The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Smith and Mr. Johnson. Okay. Mr. Lockett and Mr. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 36, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 36. Presentation of FY012 Proposed Budget. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I offer to receive this as information. We’ll discuss it in Finance next week. Mr. Hatney: So moved. Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor? 43 The Clerk: Can we vote, please? Mr. Jackson: Roll call vote. Mr. Lockett: I didn’t hear it but it sounds good to me. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Russell: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate you rapt attention to my budget presentation. As I was getting ready to say now that we’ve done the hard work we’ll roll up our sleeves and get the easy work done. Thank you, I appreciate it. The Clerk: Item 38, I think, Mr. Lockett, you had a question on this? Mr. Lockett: No, I didn’t. The Clerk: Okay. Did we put it on the consent? Okay, it’s done. I think that was on consent right? Mr. Russell: It was it should’ve been. The Clerk: Yeah, 38 was on consent. That’s it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It was pulled I thought it was. So can we just get a vote on it just to make sure? I need a motion and then a vote on it. ATTORNEY 38. Motion to approve a resolution authorizing the settlement of all claims by Theodore R. McNeal, in the aggregate amount of seventeen thousand and five hundred dollars ($17,500.00); authorizing the Administrator to disburse the amount of seventeen thousand and five dollars ($17, 500.00); and for other purposes. Mr. Johnson: Move to approve. Mr. Smith: Second. The Clerk: Okay, just to make sure. Mr. Smith: We talking about your budget or what? The Clerk: No, sir, Item 38 the settlement resolution. We need Mr. McKenzie to be able to authorize the request for settlement money. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we stand adjourned. 44 Mr. Russell: Just for your information, ladies and gentlemen, because the budget presentation was today that information will be made public. So the presentation will be out there just in case. You can read about it in the paper tomorrow. [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 October 18, 2011. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 45 46