Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting September 16, 2014 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., September 16, 2014, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson, Hasan, Davis and G. Smith, members of Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: --- K.B. Martin, Pastor, Antioch Baptist Church for our invocation. Please stand. The invocation was given by Reverend K.B. Martin, Pastor, Antioch Baptist Church. Mr. Mayor: Please join me in the Pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: And, Pastor, if you could please come forward I’ve got a little something for you. Thank you for that invocation. And Office of the Mayor. Certificate of Recognition given to Reverend K.B. Martin, Pastor, Antioch Baptist Church is Chaplain of the Day. On behalf of the Augusta Commission and the citizenry of Augusta we extend to you our appreciation for the significant contributions and pivotal roles you have played in enhancing the quality of life in our communities through your ministry of reconciliation. The City of Augusta recognizes and th applauds your efforts to advance Christian and civic excellence. Given under my hand this 16 Day of September 2014. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the presentations. The Clerk: PRESENTATIONS A. Major Gene Johnson, (RET) and Capt. Chester Huffman (RET) Richmond County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Mayor: Is the Sheriff here or any, okay. We have a presentation for you. And I just want to say thank you so much for your service to this county. It’s deeply felt by citizens throughout and you’ve done a wonderful job. And now they gave me the big print. That tells you how old I am now. I’ve got to get the big print. Office of the Mayor. Certificate of Retirement presented to Major Gene Johnson, Richmond County Sheriff’s Office. Whereas th Major Gene Johnson retired from the Richmond County’s Sheriff’s Office on May 30 2014 after 49 years of dedicated and devoted service. And whereas 1965 Gene Johnson began his career with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Record Bureau and seven months later joined the road patrol where he worked until 1971. He was promoted to Captain in the Criminal Investigation Division and later served as Captain in Charge of the Records Bureau and Internal Affairs. In 1984 he joined the jail staff. And whereas Major Gene Johnson attended over 30 specialized schools including the FBI National Academy at Quantico Virginia, the United States Secret Services Dignitary Protection School in Washington, D.C. he became a polygraph 1 examiner in 1977 and was appointed to the Board of Georgia State Board of Polygraphist Examiners by Governor George Busby in 1980 and served for ten years. Whereas Major Gene Johnson worked for eight Sheriff’s, one Chief of County Police and served in various noteworthy assignments within the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office most notably as Jail Administrator for the Charles B. Webster Detention Center he was instrumental in the evolution of the Phinizy Road Detention Center which is one of his proudest accomplishments. He oversaw the design and construction of the multimillion dollars Phase 2 Expansion at the Charles B. Webster st Detention Center and in his words he has watched the jail grow from the stone age to the 21 century. The City of Augusta congratulates you on this milestone achievement of retirement and extends to you our deepest appreciation for your devoted service to the citizens of Augusta and the state of Georgia. And best wishes for an enjoyable retirement. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE) Major Johnson: All that I can say is retirement is great. I miss the people I work with but it was time for me to go, 49 years is enough. Mr. Mayor: I’ve got about three and a half months left on mine. Thank ya’ll and congratulations. Come on up ya’ll. The Clerk: Captain Chester Huffman. Mr. Mayor: Is the gang all here? We’ve got everybody? All righty. Office of the Mayor. Certificate of Retirement presented to Captain Chester Van Huffman Jr., Retired, Richmond County Sheriff’s Office. Whereas Chester Van Huffman, Jr. retired from the st Richmond County Sheriff’s Department of July 31 2014 after 32 years of dedicated and loyal service. And whereas Captain Huffman graduated from Aquinas High School, attended the University of Virginia at Quantico in 1996 and successfully the FBI National Academy he is a POST Certified Senior Instructor and holds certificates in General Instruction, Speed Detection, Firearms and Driver Training. He has been actively involved in many facets of basic and advanced law enforcement training both at the local and state levels since 1984 serving on the Augusta Technical College Criminal Justice Advisory Committee and the CSRA Police Academy and Augusta Technical College Police Academy Advisory Boards. And, drum roll please, whereas Chester Van Huffman Jr. also served in various key assignments with the North Augusta and Augusta Police Departments in the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office in 1982 he began his career as police cadet with the city of North Augusta and later affiliated with the Augusta Police Department and immediately joined the Motorcycle Division advanced to the rank of Lieutenant and served as Special Operations Commander in Professional Standards and Public Information Lieutenant. In 1996 he was promoted to the rank of Captain in the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office and worked in jail administration which directed the operations of the administrative team in the charge of the detention center on Phinizy Road. The city of Augusta congratulates you on this milestone achievement of retirement and extends to you our deepest appreciation for you devoted service to the citizens of Augusta and the state of Georgia. And th best wishes for an enjoyable retirement. Given this 16 day of September 2014. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. But congratulations and thank you for your service, my friend. (APPLAUSE) 2 Captain Huffman: Thank you all very much. Like I told the Sheriff it was an honor, it’s been an honor and a pleasure to serve since 1975 in North Augusta until now with the men and women of the Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda please. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-17, items 1-17. If there are any objectors regarding our Planning Petition would you please signify your objection once the petition is read. I call your attention to: Item 1: Is a petition for a change of zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property at 3764 Peach Orchard Road. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to this Planning petition? Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, our consent agenda consists of items 1-17. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. And, Commissioners, I will now go to additions to the consent agenda. I would hope the committee chairs due to the fact that we didn’t have quorums on some of, the committee would have some number to consent. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Madam Clerk, and if my colleagues would not mind if we could consent items number 34, 35, 36 and 37. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Do we have anything further to be added to the consent agenda? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m kind of backwards here but item 42, item 45 if we could get item 28 and 25 --- The Clerk: You’re adding 25? Mr. Johnson: --- um-hmm, and then 24, 23 and 22. The Clerk: 24, 23 --- Mr. Johnson: And 22. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair, could you have the Clerk read those in numerical sequence? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Johnson: I said I was going backwards. Yes, so 22, 23, 24, 25, 28. The Clerk: Okay, let me see if I’ve got them and then we’ll, you’re adding items 22, 23, 24, 25 --- 3 Mr. Johnson: Right. The Clerk: --- 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any further items to be added to the consent agenda? Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I don’t have anything to add, I’m just trying to get some clarity. What are we doing with 42? I was trying to keep up with ya’ll --- The Clerk: Adding it to the consent. What, 42? Mr. Williams: Yes, what --- The Clerk: Adding it to the consent agenda. Mr. Williams: Yeah but I need some clarity on, I thought we voted --- Mr. Mayor: Do we have somebody? Mr. Schroer, do we have somebody who can speak to this issue for some clarity? Anybody out there watching us on TV? Oh, there he is. Mr. Schroer: Good afternoon. Diane McNabb from PSM Group was here to discuss the bond sale that took place earlier this morning. Mr. Mayor: Ms. McNabb. Ms. McNabb: Thank you. Well, we had an incredibly successful bond sale this morning refunding the outstanding 2014, 2004 bonds, excuse me, and a little bit of new money added to it. You received six bids with the winning bid coming from City Group Global Markets Inc. with a TIC of 3.867825. The good news is where we had originally been estimating I think the last time we ran the numbers we estimated savings of approximately $24 million dollars. With the aggressive bids that we received today your present value savings is actually $33 million dollars (APPLAUSE) that, it is 20% of the prior bonds. In my 30 years of doing this I have never had a refunding issue that produced 20% savings. So that I think is exceptional. And you are calling the bonds on the first available date that they could possibly be called on so this is the maximum that you could’ve saved on this issue. And you priced, your interest rates were less than, we could only find three other issues that had ratings that were approximately the same as yours. And actually they were all just slightly higher rated and their interest rates ranged from ten basis points .1% higher than yours up to .6% higher than yours. So your interest rates were significantly lower than everyone else’s. And I think that what you’re --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you very much and I’m glad I asked that question. I mean we’re fixing to vote on something that nobody was excited about prior to. I’m just amazed how we can, I guess, foresee, not foresee but not ask those questions and I’m glad that 4 we got the report that you’ve given us. I’m certainly happy about that. But it’s just sad that we had to ask for that. We voted on it and it could’ve went totally the other way. I could’ve been something that we wasn’t pleased with. So here again I know we missed committee and we didn’t have the participation we needed to have at committee but I’m glad that things worked as well. But I’m kind of disappointed that we wasn’t abreast of that prior to this meeting and hearing it like everybody else hearing it and everybody ought to be letting balloons go right now. We ought to be excited, I guess, but that’s my response, Mr. Mayor. I see Tim’s got his hand up --- Ms. McNabb: Well, we just --- Mr. Mayor: Amen brother. Ms. McNabb: --- did the bids at 10:00 o’clock. Mr. Williams: Yeah, but we had to vote on this and I understand that if you just found out. That helps me a little bit more but that comes back from communication. If you just found out 10:00 o’clock in the morning there wasn’t time to get it on the list but we were going to approve something that I had no knowledge of and I just wanted to make sure what we was doing. And it worked out in our favor so I’m grateful for that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir, and thank ya’ll for that report. Okay, do we have any items to be pulled --- Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor: --- Yes, sir, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: For my colleague’s information I had on my paper to pull agenda item number 42 so it wouldn’t have gotten by without some debate on it. I want to pull agenda item number 24. I have some questions on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Okay, 24, so we didn’t have unanimous consent on that one, correct, because that was on the regular agenda. The Clerk: No, sir, that would have to be added to the consent. Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry. Okay, do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? The Clerk: He pulled 24, okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, but from the consent agenda. We just have had such a long agenda that okay hearing none can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved. 5 Mr. Johnson: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. Z-14-42 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition by Hudson Rogers, on behalf of Frederick L. Young Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing 5.85 acres and is known as 3764 Peach Orchard Road. Tax Map 168-0-021-00-0 DISTRICT 6 PUBLIC SERVICES 2. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta, Georgia Code, Title 6, Chapter 2, Article I, Alcoholic Beverages, Sections 6-2-1 through 6-2-145 without fee increases. (Approved by the Commission September 2, 2014 – second reading. 3. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta, Georgia Code, Title 2, Chapter 1, Article I, Administrative and Regulatory Fee Structure, Sections 2-1-3(c) so as to establish the Hybrid Restaurant regulatory fee as recommended by the Planning and Development Department with an effective date of January 1, 2015. (Approved by the Commission September 2, 2014 – second reading) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 4. Motion to approve amending Ordinance No. 7434 changing the meeting time for regular commission meetings for legal matters from 12 Noon to 1:00 p.m. and starting Public Services Committee at 1:00 p.m. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 8, 2014) 5. Motion to approve employee retention incentive and vacation buyback program subject to staff bring back financial information on both items to the commission for final approval. (approved by Administrative Services Committee September 8, 2014) ENGINEERING SERVICES 6. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way and permanent construction and maintenance easement and one temporary driveway easement (Parcel 193-0-097-00-0) 4594 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 7. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way, permanent construction and maintenance easement, and one temporary driveway easement (Parcel 227-0-037-00-0) 4759 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 8. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way, permanent construction and maintenance easement, and one temporary driveway easement (Parcel 227-0-092-00-0) 4760 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 9. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way, permanent easement, and one driveway easement (Parcel 209-0-007-00-0) 4727 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 6 10. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for permanent easement and temporary construction easement, (Parcel 052-0-015-00-0) 3875 Belair Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 11. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way and permanent construction and maintenance easement, and one temporary driveway easement (Parcel 193-0-027-00-0) 4614 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 12. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way and temporary construction easement, (Parcel 052-0-016-00-0) 3871 Belair Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 13. Motion to approve purchase order to Duke’s Root Control in the amount of $250,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 14. Motion to approve award of Engineering Services Contract to Cranston Engineering Group, PC in the amount of $353,726.00 for Task 3 of the Augusta ADA Self Evaluation & Transition Plan. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 15. Motion to approve the formation of a fiber installation and maintenance crew in the Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) 16. Motion to determine that 0.166 Acre of Right-of-Way at the Northwest Intersection of Alexander Drive and Old Alexander Drive, as shown on the attached plat has ceased to be used by the public to the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it or that its removal from the county road system is otherwise in the best public interest, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §32-7-2, with the abandoned property to be quit-claimed to the appropriate party(ies), as provided by law and easement to be retained over the entire abandoned portion for existing or future utilities as directed by Augusta Engineering Department and Augusta Utilities Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 17. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held September 2, 2014 and Special Called Meeting held Augusta 8, 2014. PUBLIC SERVICES 22. Motion to approve entering into contract with Hall Marketing for Augusta Regional Airport’s Advertising Agency of record as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their August 28, 2014 Meeting. 23. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 14-34: request by Kerry Kenny for a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with 706 Home located at 3644 Walton Way Ext. District 3. Super District 10. 25. Motion to approve the selection of and contract with Diio, LLC for providing Aviation Statistical Data to the Augusta Regional Airport as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their August 28,2 014 Meeting. 28. Motion to approve the Reeves Construction Change Modification #1 for the Credit Card Lot Repairs as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their August 28, 2014 Meeting. FINANCE 7 34. Approve the acquisition of one vehicle for the Coroner’s Office. 35. Approve the replacement of 1 older model mechanical rodder truck with more modern water based jet rodder truck for Augusta Utilities Department-Construction and Maintenance Division. 36. Approve a request from the Augusta Utilities Department-Water Production Division to purchase a new F-350 Crew Cab maintenance truck with small crane. 37. Motion to approve the acquisition of one new ride-on trencher for the Utilities Department-Facilities Maintenance Division 42. Motion to approve Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds series 2014 supplemental resolution. ENGINEERING SERVICES 45. Motion to approve reallocation $630,000 from Oates Creek (SPLOST III-District 2), to Hyde Park/Wilkerson Gardens Drainage Improvements Project to partially fund land acquisition and resident relocations as requested by AED. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2014) The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, before we take that vote can we have --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: --- Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman, can we acknowledge this alcohol petition to see if there are any objectors? Is the petitioner in the chamber? Mr. Sherman: (inaudible) read it out if I may. The Clerk: Okay, 23. Mr. Sherman: Okay, this is an alcohol application. Mr. Kerry can, okay. Okay, number 23 just to put it on the record. PUBLIC SERVICES 23. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 14-34: request by Kerry Kenny for a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with 706 Home located at 3644 Walton Way Ext. District 3. Super District 10. Mr. Sherman: And if you could just state your name for the record. Mr. Kenny: My name is Kerry Kenny. My address is 3492 Rhodes Hill Drive, Martinez, Georgia. Mr. Sherman: The Sheriff’s Department and Planning and Development recommend approval. Are there any objectors to the alcohol application? There are no objectors. The Clerk: Okay. 8 Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Can I get a motion to, excuse me, Ms. Allen. ADMINISTRATOR 47. Update from the Interim Administrator regarding Clerk of Commission’s Office Space. Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to defer item 47 if we could back to the Public Services Committee. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We okay? Okay. All righty, can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? The Clerk: We have one. We did? Do we have a second? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Guilfoyle and the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Item 47 belongs to the Commission. Is that right or can that be pulled and sent back? The Clerk: She’s requesting, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: I understand but I don’t --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. It’s just being referred back to committee correct? Mr. MacKenzie: Yeah, it does belong to the body once it’s on the main agenda. The body can make a decision other than referring it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. But we’ve added it. There was unanimous consent to refer it back to committee so --- Mr. Williams: I’m sorry it couldn’t have been. If I had checked it, I mean, that’s why I asked that question because I knew that once it came here it belonged to the body and we can send it back but I don’t think the Administrator or anyone else can do it except this body. Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, that’s why I looked an asked if we had unanimous consent for that to and nobody objected at that point before I asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Okay. Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 9 Mr. Williams votes No. Motion Passes 8-1. [Items 1-17, 22, 23, 25, 28, 34-37, 42, 45] Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk on to the regular agenda, please. The Clerk: PLANNING 18. Z-13-14 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to dismiss a petition by Verizon Wireless, on behalf of the Trustees of Masonic Hall of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunications tower per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing a .22 acre leased tower compound of a 5.21 acre tract known as 3201 Wrightsboro Road. (Tax Map 042-1-034-01-0) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: At the request of the department they would like to move this item until a little bit later in the agenda if that’s okay. They’re still finalizing a few things for this particular item. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is that, do we need a motion on that or? Mr. MacKenzie: If there’s unanimous consent, you can do that through the Chair. Mr. Mayor: Is there unanimous consent due to the fact that this agenda item’s still being worked on that we could do that? Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we’ve got someone here to speak to the item and I would to have them come back. I mean I thought this would be ready but all of the conversation’s been --- Mr. MacKenzie: It will be at this meeting --- Mr. Mayor: It’ll be in this meeting --- Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: --- it’s just calling it later. Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem with that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: My only concern is that if you’re still working on it when am I going to get an opportunity to review on what you’ve worked on? 10 Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. MacKenzie, would you like? Mr. MacKenzie: I can’t speak for the department. Their request was just to move it to a little bit later in the same agenda. They’re finalizing a couple of things and if ya’ll are okay with that they’d like to move it to a little bit later in the agenda. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All righty, Madam Clerk, we will come back to 18. Next agenda item, please, ma’am. The Clerk: PLANNING 19. Z-14-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a petition by Jennifer A. Blackburn, attorney for Verizon Wireless, on behalf of Mary P. McElmurray, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property containing .22 acres located 269 feet, more or less, west of Old Waynesboro Road and also being 1,439 feet, more or less, south of where the centerline of Rusk Drive extended intersects. Part of Tax May 213-0-156-00-0 nd (DISTRICT 6) (Deferred from the Commission’s May 22 meeting for 90-days) Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Wilson here? Do we have somebody from Planning and Zoning to, Commissioner Guilfoyle? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, I was hoping Ms. Wilson would be here to speak on behalf of this. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we do have somebody to speak. Mr. Hunter: I’m here, I didn’t know Ms. Wilson wasn’t going to be here but I haven’t been involved in the dialogue on these two cases that are coming back. They’ve been postponed for several months. Mr. Mayor: There she is. Mr. Hunter: Okay, I will yield to Ms. Wilson then. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: I’m sorry for being late. We were making copies because we got information late from the other side so we wanted to make sure you had all the information that you needed. Mr. Mayor: Okay and this is agenda item 19. Ms. Wilson: Thank you. This was for the first item that I asked you to postpone a little bit to the later part of the agenda. 11 Mr. Mayor: Okay this is, but this 19. Ms. Wilson: Right, right. Okay, this is a request for a rezoning from R-1 to R-2 Two- family Residential to establish a 250 foot tall communication tower. The applicant is asking for a rezoning which is what you should act on first and then they are asking for a Special Exception to allow for the cell tower. After discussion at the Planning Board and we talked several points 1): The subject property as I said is currently zoned R-1. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta does not prohibit wireless facilities so I want to stress that. We’re not saying that you can’t have them. Monopole and antenna communication facilities may be located in an R-1 upon granting of a Special Exception as long as they are located on an existing non-residential structure. 2) The denial position in this case as previously noted facilities may be located in R-1 upon granting Special Exception. In this case they are asking for an R-2 Zoning so that they may have additional height. 3) The petition if you grant the rezoning which is one of the big issues that we had a lot of discussion on; this area is characterized as the mix of rural and residential lots. A lot of those lots exceed ¾ of an acre. It is suburban residential in style and there’s scattered commercial and industrial development in addition to some woodlands and farmlands. I have copies of the maps. Hopefully Mr., Paul, are you still here? Do you have the copies of the maps? Okay. One of the issues that was raised and one of the reasons that we recommended denial for this request is that this area is not supported by water or more importantly, it’s not supported by sewer. Future development map for this property is designated as a transitional area. The hope is by maintaining the integrity of the existing one-family zoning that this will insure a desired future land use of single family development. While development in this area has not happened, it is something that is anticipated by the comprehensive plan and does not deny the fact that low density residential development is a desired future land use for this area at the present time. Approval of the R-2 zoning here will set a precedent for other requests to come. 2) While the comparative plan does not expressly list telecommunication facilities as a land use conflict with the character of the area, the comparative plan does not list all comparative land uses. That is a judgment that you all are allowed to make as a Commission and Planning Commission is allowed to make as a body. The regulations are more restrictive, though, on facilities located in an R-1 Zone. In that case that would have to be a stealth antenna. And so I’m going over both of these cases in a sense because you’ve got the rezoning and the Special Exception and they’re both tied together. Do you have the jump drive and with that the Planning Board voted to recommend denial of this request for rezoning. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Wilson, this is actually about two miles from my house and this is basically farm land until you get to Old Waynesboro and Brown Road which you’ve got, Nordahl that had built some houses on the left about a quarter of a mile before you hit Brown Road. So how would this affect the area as far as potential growth when it’s farmland mainly? Ms. Wilson: Well, it’s farmland currently but as we all know a lot of the growth will be taking place in this area of the city. It’s one of the areas where you’ve got some of the larger parcels of undeveloped land. In addition to that because you don’t have the utilities there to 12 support (unintelligible) at that time utilities are used to kind of soften growth until jurisdictions can handle the growth. Mr. Guilfoyle: Right, I understand but that land as far as that area right there is hilly it’s not a flat land that would be good for development. And you had brought up, it’s not supported by water and sewage. Aerial towers doesn’t have any need for that. It doesn’t have any --- Ms. Wilson: Well, that’s correct but in this case you’re making a decision based on the zoning first. They’re asking for an R-2 rezoning period. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Ms. Wilson: And that is the zoning that would support increased density. And that is the zoning that would need water and sewer because it is a residential zone. The Special Exception is the request which is the next item on the agenda where they are requesting to have a cell phone tower that is 250 feet. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so we’re just about changing the zoning on this to accept the next agenda item. I can understand if it’s a safety or let me get back to focus on the rezoning. It doesn’t, it will not make a difference if we have or have not a tower out there as far as development. I don’t foresee it. If it was going to be developed out there it would already have started. I think that the development that you’re going to see is going to be coming more towards the east side of Hephzibah especially with them just putting, getting approved for the Charter School. So as far as leasing and development on farmland, first of all, the farmer’s got to be willing to sell the land for development and I don’t see the McElmurrays selling any of the property here any time soon. Ms. Wilson: Well, and again in 1988 the city did a comprehensive rezoning and they rezoned the property at that time from an agricultural zoning use to an R-1. And again a telecommunications tower is allowed in an R-1 it just has to be, it’s just not allowed at the height that the applicant wants which is why they’re rezoning the property. Mr. Guilfoyle: Is the applicant willing to lower the height? Ms. Wilson: That is something that you will have to talk to the applicant about. We were just looking at this issue as we do all based on approved plans and policy by this board and by the Planning Commission. Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. The only, I would like to see if we can’t change this to R-2 for the simple reason as I know the area out there. It’s not a safety issue or it’s not going to prevent any development --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two minutes. Mr. Guilfoyle: I’ll stand down until I hear my colleagues to take that other two, Mr. Mayor. 13 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we will hear from Commissioner Williams and then I think it might be good to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m just, I’m just thinking in my mind that the cell phones have really replaced the home phones. I do realize in that area coverage and we’re building more and with the communication and technology that’s out there now I did away with my home phone so anybody that tries to call me at home that’s why you don’t get an answer, I don’t have a home phone anymore; I use my cell phone continuously. So I’m saying that if we allow this I think it would be a plus. I don’t see anyone here that was against it and I guess I need to ask Planning and Zoning were there a number who came out and opposed the change in that area? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: No, sir, no one came out to express opposition to this request. Mr. Williams: Okay, that helps me make a decision then. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hasan and then we’ll here from the petitioner. Mr. Hasan: My concern in an R-1 it does allow it to be a stealth as it had been mentioned. I’m wondering number one first how high is the height of a stealth and number two if you consider doing this to an R-2 and it go to 250 feet, what impact do it may not be a traffic concern at this point, what impact would it have on Augusta Regional Airport because we’re within a few miles from there if you’re talked about 200 feet high? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson? Ms. Wilson: And I was hoping my staff was still here but the R-1 supports up to 100 feet and it would have to be stealth. The R-2 would support going higher and it does not have to be stealth. Again the staff after doing the analysis is looking at what was originally recommended by this body and the past commissions looked at what possible impact would having a tower that large have on potential development of that property in the area because it’s kind of in the middle along the side, it goes up into the property somewhat. So those are the things that we looked when we were looking at the rezoning. But again we’re looking at the land use first. That was the first thing that we looked at is this an appropriate area right now for an R-2 Zoning classification. That’s the decision that is before you right now. The second decision will be whether you if you agree with the rezoning agree that this is an appropriate location for a Special Exception to allow a tower that’s 250 feet that is not stealth. Mr. Mayor: Okay, could we hear from the petitioner or their representative? And if you could state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Mr. Kirk: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Commissioners my name is David Kirk. I’m with the law firm Troutman Sanders. 14 Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir. Mr. Kirk: 600 Peachtree Street Atlanta, here representing the applicant. As Ms. Wilson said there are two applications before you one for the rezoning of a quarter of an acre piece of a 437 acre property and the other for the Special Exception. This would not rezone the entire 437 acre parcel that the McElmurrays own, just to rezone a small portion of that. Let me make just a few general points at the outset. In a little more than a decade wireless communications have gone from really sort of a convenience or luxury to a necessity as Commissioner Williams pointed out. People rely on their wireless devices every day all day. Based on statistics and surveys done by the Centers for Disease Control here in Georgia about 40% about 40% of all households rely entirely on wireless communication. They’ve cut the cord so to speak. Nearly 60% estimates the CDC 60% of adults living in poverty have cut the cord as well and rely entirely on wireless. So think about that between 40 and 60% of your constituents rely entirely on wireless facilities. It’s really a lifeline for their business, their personal, and their emergency needs. The difference between having good service and having poor service is really a public safety issue. The Federal Communications Commission states that about 70% of all 911 calls are made using a wireless device. Many of those are made from highways but a lot of those are made from home where you have a medical emergency or an intruder or a fire or some other emergency that requires you to summon emergency services. It’s also an economic development issue. It’s clear that good wireless service is a significant driver of economic activity. I do a lot of work with real estate brokers and they’ve told me that more and more prospects get to a piece of property and the first thing they do is check the wireless signal and if it’s insufficient they want to look somewhere else. Within this context we’re trying to improve wireless service in the southern part of Augusta not just with this site but with other sites that you’ll see coming before you in the coming months. It’s critical to keep pace with the services provided elsewhere in Augusta. With that being said let me quickly make a few remarks about the rezoning. I’ve known Mr. DeCamp and Mr. Austin who prepared the report for years. In fact like your staff I’m also a professional planner in addition to being a lawyer and served for many years with Mr. DeCamp on the Board of the Georgia Planning Association. I’ve also gotten to know Ms. Wilson in the past several months and I respect them and their professionalism but I respectfully disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of their report. First I don’t understand why the staff report indicates the lack of sanitary sewage for this area is relevant to a telecommunications tower. It simply isn’t. We’re rezoning a very small portion of property to R-2 that in no way would require sewer service. If there are concerns about the impact or the precedent this might set I would suggest that if this board is willing to rezone it that they rezone it conditional upon make it a condition that it be only a telecommunications tower. That way in the future if there is pressure you have that in your record as a position that I think is defensible. Second, I don’t believe the proposed tower would be in conflict with the character of the area. On the contrary as this area continues to develop over the next several years this facility is actually going to support development in the area by providing necessary services to that 40% or more of the households that will be looking to move into that area. Third, I think the staff’s report’s conclusion that the tower in this location would be inconsistent with the South Richmond Neighborhood plan is simply incorrect. To say that these sorts of facilities are incompatible with about a third of the county, a third of the city would mean that the policy of Augusta is to deny adequate wireless communication services to a significant number of its 15 citizens. I don’t think that’s your policy and I hope you’d agree with me and rezone this property to the R-2 classification. Mr. Mayor, can I take two more minutes to speak about the Special Exception or would you like to come back to that? Mr. Mayor: Let’s come back to that. Mr. Kirk: Okay. Thank you, I’d be happy --- Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kirk: --- to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, as far as Ms. Wilson was talking about the stealth tower. Is that possible? Mr. Kirk: Unfortunately in this location because I think as you noted it’s a very hilly terrain. We could actually in an R-2 Classification I believe go up to it’s either 300 or 350 feet in an R-2 classification. I may be wrong on that but I know that we are at the location or at the height that Verizon Wireless’ radio frequency engineers have determined is the height that is necessary to meet the coverage and capacity objectives in that area. In theory you could try to do something stealth that high. I’ve see what we call ‘monopines’ which look like pine trees as high as 200 feet but I think it would be very difficult even at 200 feet they’re very, they stand out quite frankly more than a regular tower would. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, as far as what my colleague had asked about the airport traffic at Bush Field. Is there any problem with that? Mr. Kirk: None that we’re aware of. The FAA did a thorough determination of No Hazard. We’re not in any flight paths. We’re several miles away from that airport, sir. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Kirk: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I think I see the airport director here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Airport Director. Mr. LeTellier: Yes, sir. We did an engineering study on this specific location and we don’t have a problem with the specified height, however, we would have a great deal of problems with it going any higher than that. And I’d like to say also that we looked at the county’s Height Hazard Zoning which was done in 1982 and it really is, it’s just terrible. It 16 needs to be reworked countywide with Daniel’s and Bush Field both in mind. Folks at Daniel Field are having a lot of trouble right now and so I would urge you to update the Height Hazard Zoning for the entire county. And for the record we don’t have an airspace issue at this specific height but would require an additional study if you went an inch higher. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Wilson, is it possible that we could approve this item and put a stipulation on the height? Ms. Wilson: Yes, you could condition it to limit the height. And I might note that should you move forward with approving this item I probably will be back here within the next few months to just rezone the whole parcel so that we don’t end up with a B-2 zoning sitting out in the middle of a large field. And I will work with the Utilities Director to see what the possible opportunities are to extend additional utilities to that area. Mr. Fennoy: And my last question is to the representative to Verizon. Mr. Kirk: I’m sorry, Commissioner, the Attorney was talking with me there. Mr. Fennoy: Would two hundred and, what’s the maximum height that you all would need in order to provide the type of service that you want to do for that (inaudible). Mr. Kirk: The radio frequency engineers indicated that in the materials that are before you that 250 feet is the minimum height that’s necessary to meet the objectives. Certainly going down to 100 feet would make it, it would make it unnecessary to build the tower because it would not provide any significant service. Mr. Fennoy: I think Commissioner Guilfoyle had mentioned earlier that the area that we’re talking about is on a field --- Mr. Kirk: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- and when you say maximum of 250 or a minimum of 250 are we taking the hills into consideration? Mr. Kirk: That in fact is why it needs to be 250 feet, Commissioner. It is not on the top of the hill, it is on a slope. I think Brown Road is about the high point there and this is a little bit south of Brown Road so you lose elevation as you go south on Old Waynesboro. This would be about 275 feet back from the road back behind the tree line. And in order to provide the service, you know, we’re here on the fall line so we have a lot of topography. In order to provide the services needed in that area to essentially connect that cell with the surrounding towers that are several miles off that Verizon is on we need that 250 feet. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, thank you. 17 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Wilson, we’re hearing two different things as far as affecting the future development of that area. So can you go over that again real quickly please as far as how you think it would --- Ms. Wilson: What’s happening is again, this is two applications. Unfortunately they kind of go in tandem because the zoning is what allows for the additional height. Again we are looking at it first from the land use standpoint. And we looked at all of our policy documents that we currently have that have been approved by both bodies. We also looked at utilities and infrastructure and I’ve got a utilities map here if someone could help me just highlight it, with regards to what services are allowed there. When you start zoning to a higher density, it sets a precedent and if that is what you would like to do then that’s okay. My recommendation however is if we decide to go this route, why not zone the whole parcel so that it is R-2 and look at possibly future, adding future services to that area. But the first issue and the issue that we made our recommendation on is whether it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and the other planning documents that we have on file within our agency. The other thing is that if you decide to approve this rezoning request that the applicant would have to agree to a 250 foot height limit. If he did not agree to that, then you have to make the decision based on allowing him to go to the max which could be 300 feet. So I just wanted to reiterate that as well. Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. LeTellier one quick question? I just didn’t know if this went before the Aviation Commission before it went to the Planning. LeTellier: No, ma’am, it did not. Ms. Davis: Okay. Mr. LeTellier: We were asked (inaudible). Ms. Davis: Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, it seems as though we may not be able to make a decision on this today simply because of what Mr. the Airport Director I don’t want to screw his name up said about trying to lock it into 250 because the gentleman has stated that he may need more. Are you willing to be locked in at the 250? Mr. Kirk: No, 250 is fine with us Commissioner. What I said was and Ms. Wilson is correct in the R-2 Zoning Classification you could, we could go to 300 feet but we are not asking for the maximum because quite frankly we don’t need it. We just need to be at that 250. So I would be happy to stipulate to a height limitation either as part of the rezoning or should this body want to go forward as part of the Special Exception. So I want to put you at ease that we are, it is not our intention and we’ll be happy to be limited to that 250 foot tower. 18 Mr. Hasan: Thank you. Mr. Kirk: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ve recognized you twice Commissioner Guilfoyle. I’ll give one minute of personal privilege. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. I just wanted to ask the director you’re talking about making this whole parcel B-2 but wouldn’t that have to come from the land owner to ask for it to be changed not for this government to? Ms. Wilson: Well, we would go and have discussion with the landowner with regards to rezoning the parcel. Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. Ms. Wilson: That discussion is what I am saying that I would be having with them within the next few months because again what you end up with is a B-2 that’s kind of right in here. So you’ve kind of got like a flag property where you are surrounded by B-1 and if this something that --- Mr. Guilfoyle: You’re using up my minutes now. Ms. Wilson: --- I’m sorry, well this is something that you would like to do then --- Mr. Mayor: I measure it on when you guys are speaking. Ms. Wilson: I’m sorry. If this is something that you decide you want to pursue then I feel like I’m obligated to talk to the property owner to see if they are interested in zoning the whole thing to B-2. Mr. Guilfoyle: I understand that. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to approve it to R-2 under the condition that it’s only the property to be used as a cell tower and not to exceed 250 feet. Mr. Grady Smith: I second it. Mr. Mayor: We have motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Lockett, did you? Mr. Lockett: Thank you. My question I guess is to Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson, they want this property 0.22 acres rezoned to what? Ms. Wilson: R-2. Mr. Lockett: What does R-2 include besides a cell tower? 19 Ms. Wilson: Two-family Residential. It has a higher density. Initially the property was zoned Agriculture. In 1998 the county went and did a Comprehensive Rezoning and zoned it to R-1 which is a Single Family. This request that you have before you is for an R-2. The R-1 was done because again you have to have a larger lot because there’s no septic systems located in the area. So the lot sizes have to be large enough to accommodate alternative waste water treatments. Mr. Lockett: Well, if this was approved you’re not establishing a precedent that will cause any harm or difficulty to the other residents of that community. Ms. Wilson: Well, again if this is approved I would talk with the property owner and probably a few others to see if they are interested in zoning their property to B-2. One of the things that I don’t like to do is kind of set precedents in areas where someone could come back and want to do something else. So we can at least have a dialogue and talk more specifically about things that could be developed on this property and I would engage in further conversations with Tom Wiedmeier, the Utilities Director, to find out you know when there would be the possibility of extending sewer out to that area because again you do have water lines. They’re the blue lines that are here but there’s no sewer. Mr. Lockett: And lastly what would preclude Comcast or somebody else wanting to come and put a tower in on the next property? Ms. Wilson: Nothing. By at least having a 250 foot height limit --- Mr. Lockett: Basically what I’m asking Ms. Wilson is we could since we spoke about the potential growth for that community we could have a cell tower farm out there eventually. Ms. Wilson: Anything’s possible. Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you. I think the motion was to limit it to the 250 plus there wouldn’t anything but a cell tower there. I think that’s what the motion read and if someone wanted to come in they would have to come through Planning and Zoning just like this company did and request it through us again. I mean we can’t sit here and solve all of them problems out there the McElmurray Farm at one time. So I’m ready to take a vote on it that because I thought it was clear that we would just limit it to the 250 feet and when nothing else be built there but the cell tower, that’s all. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Ms. Wilson, I just have one question I need some clarity. I was under the understanding when you had briefed earlier that it was extremely important or relevant 20 that there be sewer accommodations and so forth. I know we’re talking about a cell tower, what relevance was that or is that relevant that there be sewer services and other utility capabilities out there? Ms. Wilson: Well, when a property is developed at a higher entity you need to have public water and sewer in order to support that higher density. Going to an R-2 it’s a Two- Family Residential which means that you can have, you know, duplexes. Therefore in order to support the housing that would be allowed in an R-2 zoning classification you would have to have the utilities in place. It might be that the property owners decide that they were going to keep the property zoned R-1 and that’s fine but I feel that if we’re going to move forward with rezoning this that I at least need to engage in a discussion and look at that area again with regards to the possibility of the extension of utilities. The other thing and I’m not sure if the applicant is going to mention it but I’m assuming you’re going to do co-locations, is that what you we’re going to? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kirk? Mr. Kirk: Yes, thank you, Ms. Wilson, and to go to your question, Mr. Lockett, Verizon like most other carriers is happy to provide space on its towers for other carriers. And in fact I mentioned earlier about the importance of public safety. Verizon also offers space on its towers free of charge for First Responder Emergency Communication. Mr. Mason: If I could finish, Mr. Mayor, because I want finished. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: If you, Ms. Wilson, given everything that you’ve heard by various individuals, is it still your recommendation that this petition be denied? Ms. Wilson: Well, my recommendation is still to deny it because my recommendation has to be based on policies that this board and previous Planning Commissions have recommended. And based on the fact that it is not in regards to the zoning we’re not talking about the Special Exception, that’s the second part of this application. But to put a higher density zoning in this area right now based on the fact that there are not utilities to support future development of this area at an R-2 density would not be something that I would recommend. However, if you decide to move forward with recommending approval for this I would at least engage in conversations with the bodies that I mentioned previously because I think that that’s the right thing to do to look at that area. Mr. Mason: Thank you Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mason. We have a motion that’s been made and properly second. And for clarity, Madam Clerk, could you read back that motion? The Clerk: The motion is to approve a petition by Jennifer Blackburn, attorney for Verizon on behalf of Mary McElmurray requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One- 21 family Residential) to a Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property on Old Waynesboro Road and Rusk Drive to be used for a cell tower not to exceed 250 feet for the tower. Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grady Smith vote Yes. Ms. Davis, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Mason vote No. Motion Passes 6-3. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: PLANNING 20. Z-14-20 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a petition by Jennifer A. Blackburn, attorney for Verizon Wireless, on behalf of Mary P. McElmurray, requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-5© of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing .22 acres located 269 feet, more or less, west of Old Waynesboro Road and also being 1,439 feet, more or less, south of where the centerline of Rusk Drive extended intersects. Part of Tax Map 213-0-156-00-0 (DISTRICT 6) (Deferred from the nd Commission’s May 22 meeting for 90-days) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: Again, you’ve heard a lot of the previous history on this case so I will not belabor the point. This property is the property we were just talking about. It’s .22 acres and it’s located about 269 feet more or less on Old Waynesboro Road. Again the recommendation from staff is for denial. That recommendation is based on the following findings. A blanket rezoning as indicated previously in 1998 changed the zoning from Agriculture to R-1 (One- family Residential). This was done to reserve the land for additional low density zoning. Are in an R-1 district which it is currently zoned telecommunication facilities are allowed by right on existing non-residential structures or if designed as stealth facilities. This regulation exists to protect residential neighborhoods and at the same time accommodate telecommunications facilities. A telecommunication tower of the size and type proposed which this is a large tower, it is quite massive does not fit within the character of the south Richmond planning area and in fact conflicts with the character of the area. And the guiding policy in the Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan is to encourage the preservation of residential areas by protecting from conflicting land uses. So with that we feel that this petition does not meet the requirements for a Special Exception and recommend denial. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. 22 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to approve with the stipulation that it won’t be anything but a cell tower. There’s no residents there. We approved the first item so it would be haphazard not to approve this one. But my motion is to approve with the stipulation that it won’t be anything but a cell tower in that location. Mr. Mayor: And not to exceed 250 feet. Mr. Williams: Not to exceed 250 feet. Mr. Grady Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Wilson, do we need to change, make some changes as far as the ordinance concerning --- Ms. Wilson: Absolutely. We need to make a lot of changes to our ordinance. One of the things that I like to try to do is identify sites where they would meet the requirements of the telecommunications industry so that we can create a kind of cell farms versus having them sporadically dotted around the city. They normally are not that attractive and a lot of times they’re in the middle of properties and does an adverse impact when it is time to develop the property. So that is something that I am looking to do into my work program as well as looking at some of the airspace in other issues as identified by the airport because the documents that we have are quite old, they were last done in 1983. Mr. Mayor: Antiquated. Mr. Fennoy: And I think the recommendation that you bring before the Commission is based on the old --- Ms. Wilson: Well, it’s based on the policies with regards to the land uses is more current than that. But, you know, we do look at the airspace policy that is currently on record. We send all of our cell phone tower applications to the airports. I believe in sharing that information as part of our goal to be transparent and give them an opportunity to give us feedback especially because the maps in those areas are quite old. So in this case I will be looking to update a number of documents. Mr. Fennoy: And my last question is how far would this tower be from the tower that we just approved? Ms. Wilson: This is the tower. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, okay. All right I get it. All right, thank you. Ms. Wilson: You’re welcome. 23 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: --- will the Clerk read, please read the motion? The motion, please? The Clerk: Yes, sir, the motion is to approve the petition by Jennifer Blackburn, attorney for Verizon Wireless on behalf of Mary P. McElmurray, requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunication tower affecting property on Old Waynesboro Road and Louisville Road that it be used only for a cell tower and not to exceed 250 feet for the cell tower. Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grady Smith vote Yes. Ms. Davis, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Hasan and Mr. Mason vote No. Motion Fails 5-4. Mr. Mayor: No action taken. I’m sorry, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Point of clarity, Mr. Mayor. I don’t understand how we can approve then not turn around and disapprove the other one. That really don’t say a whole lot. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege. Mr. Mayor: Hang on gentlemen, everybody calm down. Continue Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And we approved the first one and I’m really kind of disappointed as to us we’re coming back. We may not like it but if it’s the right thing to do, it‘s the right thing to do. And we done approved one part and it’s necessary to approve the other part. I mean we’re just going to have it in limbo now we’re probably shouldn’t have looked at it in the beginning if that’s what we’re going to do. You’re not going to make but half of the people happy half of the time so you’ve got to do what is right by the people. I’m just disappointed and I wanted to make that (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: And I will say that we can readdress it if we get a motion to revisit the agenda item. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Just a point of clarification. In order to answer my colleague’s question the reason the vote was that way is because when I voted I didn’t realize that another motion had been made. I voted in the affirmative what was on the agenda item not what had been made so 24 that was my fault. That’s the reason the first one passed and the second didn’t. I’m a senior citizen, a slow learner, but I do learn eventually. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, no action taken. Is there a motion to --- Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: --- readdress the agenda item. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Fennoy: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan: I’m sorry and maybe I’m kind of like Mr. Lockett I’m a little slow learner too. So do we go back to the first one because if I understand correctly his mistake was made on the initial one. So are we going to open it back up do we open back up the first one because that’s where he said his mistake was made at. Mr. Mayor: This motion if I understand correctly from Commissioner Williams was to reopen agenda item number 20. Agenda item number 19 would be available to be reopened if there was a motion made to that effect. But at this point the only motion that we have on the floor is to reopen agenda item number 20. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Hasan: I’d like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: I’ve actually already called --- Mr. Hasan: Okay go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: --- I called for the vote. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grady Smith vote Yes. Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hasan vote No. Motion Fails 5-4. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: 25 PLANNING 21. Z-14-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mary Kingcannon, on behalf of Joseph Kingcannon, 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 approximately .37 acres and is known as 3908 Fairington Drive. Tax Map 152-0-132-00-0 DISTRICT 4 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson, you’re on deck again. Ms. Wilson: We’re trying to get the electronics hooked up. I apologize. Okay, are we ready? Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: Okay, this is a request for Mary Kingcannon to get a Special Exception for a Family Personal Care Home. The property is located in the northwest side of Fairington Drive in the Fairington Subdivision. It’s .37 acres or 16,117 square feet. It’s a residential lot and it contains a one-story house that’s 1,474 square feet. The surrounding land is zoned R-1 and contains single family detached residences in it, similar age and size. This is the picture of the subject property. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception zone for a Family Personal Care Home. The applicant is already housing six people in the house and has a State of Georgia License but has not obtained a Special Exception from the city. Tax records indicate that this home contains three bedrooms, two bathrooms and although the applicant provided information to us that the house has four bedrooms there apparently was a conversion. The Personal Care Home would be staffed operated on a 24-hour basis. The Georgia Department and Community Health does not regulate parking so therefore they currently have enough off street parking. The zoning ordinance states that Special Exceptions may be permitted in any zone where such uses are deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience. And this is in the case of Family Personal Care Homes which are subject to meeting the following criteria which is located in Section 26-1(H) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia. 1) It may not be established within 1,200 feet of a lawful, existing Family Day Care Home, transitional housing facility or any other personal care facility. It shall not be located in areas where health, safety and welfare of the residents would be compromised and 3) the Planning Commission shall determine if the foregoing requirements have been satisfied and further that the benefits of the proposed Family Personal Care Home are greater than the possible depreciating effects and damages to neighboring properties. In this case the applicant has already obtained a permit from the Department of Community Health. She’s been operating at this location for approximately five years. They must also obtain a business license from the Augusta Georgia Licensing Business Department. The Fire Department as well as the staff will go in and do an inspection. And this is just some of the surrounding properties located there. The area that’s highlighted is the subject property. Our findings are such. According to the Georgia Department of Community Health Records there are twenty-two Personal Care Homes in 30815 zip code. The closest one is located at 3834 Fairington Drive which is approximately 1,500 feet from the property. According to department records no Personal Care Homes exist in the immediate area. Crime statistics obtained by the Crime Mate Mapping System indicated that there has not been 26 any significant crime activity although there’s been some general crime reported in the past six months but none of those calls have been located near the subject property. A Personal Care Home would be staffed 24 hours. The proposed use would not result in any substantial physical changes to the residence. A wheelchair ramp might need to be added depending on the mobility level of the occupants. The rear yard is enclosed with a solid board wood privacy fence and has adequate for outdoor activities. There is also adequate off street parking in that the existing driveway is 69 feet in length. The home is currently served by city water and sewer. The applicant is currently licensed by the State of Georgia and meets the minimum requirements per Chapter 118-62.01 of the State of Georgia regs. Inspection by the Code Enforcement Staff found that the property is occupied and operating as a Personal Care Home. Currently there are six occupants. They’re unrelated to the owner in the house. The house has four bedrooms and two baths. Again that is bigger than what we have on our tax records so I’m sure Mr. Ross will be glad to make those adjustments. There are two people and two in the bedrooms. One person is occupying the third and fourth bedrooms. All six residents are, need very little assistance. There’s a living room, den and kitchen. The home is hard wired with smoke detectors in each bedroom and in the kitchen. There’s no structural damage to the exterior of this home and all the residents appear to be neat and clean. We have a check list that we use which is what is used by the federal government for meeting minimum housing requirements. And staff goes out and th does those inspections for staff. This item was deferred from the August 4 Planning Commission hearing based on concerns expressed by the Fairington Neighborhood Association president and it was suggested at that time that both parties get together to see if they could work some things out. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hasan then Commissioner Mason then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Hasan: I’m sorry, I’d like to defer to Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Hasan and then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Being the Commissioner of this district I’ve had numerous conversations with all parties involved. There’s a couple of things I need to get on the record here to make sure that we’re clear. I think I heard you say that they have been operating currently for five or six years. Is that correct? Ms. Wilson: That’s correct. Mr. Mason: My first question would be if they’ve been doing this already, what prompted the need and without coming before us, what the prompted the need for them to come before us now after already doing it for five years? Ms. Wilson: The applicant is here and I would like for her to respond to that question if that’s okay. 27 Mr. Mayor: If we could hear from the applicant. And if you could state your name and address for the record, please, ma’am. Ms. Kingcannon: Mary Kingcannon at 930 Deer Crest Circle in Evans, Georgia. Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Mason, if you could repeat your question to the applicant. Mr. Mason: Okay, my question was we’ve been told that this has been in operation for five years. Is that correct? Okay and you had your license from the Department of Community Health is that who it is, from the state? Okay so my question is if you’ve been doing it for five years already and you have this number of folks already in there what is the purpose of you coming before this commission now when you’ve already been doing it for five years. What prompted the need for that? Ms. Speaker: I’d like to address that for Ms. Kingcannon. Mr. Mason: Who are you? Ms. Hill: My name is Judy Hill. I am the president and owner of Caring Together. We’re the community care provider agency that subcontracts with her Personal Care Home. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Hill: When Ms. Kingcannon first approached us to assist her with getting her permit and becoming a, establishing this Personal Care Home, my former office manager helped her. She did not send her to Planning and Zoning apparently. We know that that’s supposed to be done but the state was not requesting that letter in the or a statement from Planning and Zoning in their package at the time which they do now. So Ms. Kingcannon did not go before Planning and Zoning. She didn’t know to go before Planning and Zoning. I take responsibility for that because it happened under my watch but that person is no longer working for us and as it happened, Commissioner Mason, that individual we understand is the same person that reported her for running an unlicensed Personal Care Home which she was not doing but reported her to Planning and Zoning. I know that sounds convoluted but I didn’t want Ms. Kingcannon to have to blame us, I wanted to take the blame myself. Mr. Mason: Okay, well, regardless to the blame factor I’m just trying to get to the bottom of the need how after five years it would come up now that we would need to have city approval or city license. Ms. Hill: Because she wanted to do the right thing once she found out she was supposed to have zoning. Mr. Mason: Okay, all right, so my other question going back to you, Ms. Wilson, you made a statement I think I heard you say that there was another home on Fairington, Personal Care Home on Fairington Drive? 28 Ms. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Mason: Then later on I thought I heard you say that there was no, you checked the data base and there was no personal homes that exist. Ms. Wilson: That’s not, no, sir. Mr. Mason: So that wasn’t a part of your statement when you were giving us the briefing initially when you said there was no homes existing in that, I thought I heard you say. Ms. Wilson: No, what I said was there was no homes that existed within the spacing requirements that we currently have which is 1,200 square feet --- Mr. Mason: 1,200 square feet. Ms. Wilson: --- or 1,200 linear feet, I’m sorry. Mr. Mason: But there are homes within Fairington that are Personal Care Homes is what you’re saying. Ms. Wilson: There is one. The closest one is located at 3834 Fairington Drive and it’s approximately 1,500 feet from the present property. Mr. Mason: They’re licensed? Ms. Wilson: It’s my understanding. Mr. Mason: But --- Ms. Wilson: In that case --- Mr. Mason: --- you don’t understand, I mean --- Ms. Wilson: --- well, I’m not saying I don’t understand --- Mr. Mason: --- are they licensed? Ms. Wilson: --- what I’m saying to you is that I don’t know if they’re licensed or not. I will find out if they are licensed. Mr. Mason: Okay. Ms. Hill: Is that J.S.C. Gant? Ms. Wilson: Yes. 29 Ms. Hill: Yes, they are licensed, they’re also under --- Mr. Mason: Hold on, hold on. Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair everybody. Mr. Mason: Yeah, I mean I just I’ve got to hear from the authority or the licensing authority the one the Planning Board that they would go through as to whether or not they’re licensed. I mean I’m not saying that you don’t know or maybe that you do know but I’m relying upon our subject matter experts to tell me what the real deal is. I’m not real sure that I’ve got an answer yet --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two minutes. Mr. Mason: --- heck, all I’ve got out was a question. I really didn’t get an answer. Ms. Wilson: What I was going to say as a follow up is that when we went into the database and what has happened is that in the past the state has licensed a number of Family Care Homes that did not go to the Planning Department or Planning and Zoning. In addition to that you can have a home with three or less people without having to come in and get permission from us. So we are in the process of working with these folks to make sure that they have their license and they’ll probably be back before you after we get the final numbers of who they got in there. Mr. Mason: Okay, so this request has six people. Ms. Wilson: This request has six people, yes, sir. Mr. Mason: If this request had three people --- Ms. Wilson: We wouldn’t be here. Mr. Mason: We wouldn’t be here. Ms. Wilson: That’s correct. Mr. Mason: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I’d really like to hear from any of the objectors, neighborhood association presidents, to hear their concerns about the neighborhood. Mr. Mayor: And I will be willing to call if we’ve got somebody to represent the neighborhood. Just one representative and we will have a request to show hands as to who is here and I’ll position it. We will do that first and then we’ll hear from the spokesperson. A show of hands of who is here in opposition to this. I didn’t, sir, I didn’t request everybody to stand I requested a show of hands which is sufficient. Could you please put your hands back up so that we can count them? It’s easier to count the hands as opposed to standing bodies. Hey, Sammie, I see you waving that hand. I see you. 30 Mr. Mason: Who’s got an accurate count? Who’s counting? Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator, are you? Ms. Allen: Well, I’ve seen different hands come up. I see 47 but I see other ones coming in now. I’m still at 47. Mr. Mayor: Forty seven okay. And now if I could give five minutes to a spokesperson for the opposition. Do we have somebody to speak? And if you could keep it to five minutes please, sir. And if you could put your cell phones on vibrate please. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: And if you could state your name and address for the record too please sir? Mr. Miles: I’m Elsie Miles. I’m president of the Fairington Town and Country Neighborhood Association which consists of 900 single-family homes in the Fairington Town and Country Neighborhoods. First of all I just want to kind of let a few points, let you know a few points about our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is an older neighborhood; it’s about 30 years old. We’ve come from the brink of being a, on the verge of having weed and seed in our neighborhood in the last 12 years we’ve been trying to build this neighborhood up and we’ve come to the point where our neighborhood is built up to the point where we’ve got single family that new home owners are coming to buy homes in our neighborhood now. We’ve got soldiers coming into our neighborhood now. We’ve had to fight gangs, we’ve had to fight all kind of businesses in our neighborhood, garages or we’ve had to fight and we’ve been fighting these family homes in our neighborhood for the last ten years. We have not, we have not let one go through without fighting. We, the first one we had approved in our neighborhood in the last ten years since we’ve been a neighborhood association. If they had gone through the proper procedures to establish their neighborhood, to establish their home, we would’ve been vehemently opposed to it also. We didn’t even find out this home was here, we’ve got 900 homes. We didn’t know the home was there because it’s been illegal for five years. Now you know to me we are, we have a neighborhood covenants in our neighborhood that all 900 of our homes have to abide by. Our covenants say that property in our neighborhood is only supposed to be used for residential purposes. We’ve got one, the one home in it that’s been approved in the neighborhood that was approved before we became a neighborhood association before we started working on our neighborhood. We believe that R-1 is for families and for residents and that business, and believe me, that’s a business that they put in our neighborhood. It’s got six patients in there between $12 and 15,000 dollars a month and it’s part of a larger conglomerate of neighborhood associations that have several homes in south Augusta neighborhoods. It’s not just that one but personally for our neighborhood we have fought vehemently against any kind of property, we’re not just against her house but any kind of businesses in our neighborhood. Businesses in our neighborhood, we’ve be gotten a lot of people that are coming in our neighborhood that don’t belong in our neighborhood. We’ve used the Sheriff’s Department and Marshal’s Department and all those kind so people to get those types of businesses that are illegal in our neighborhood. And it look like to me, if this Special Exception is granted, we’re 31 like rewarding them for operating an illegal home for five years but you are punishing my neighborhood for being out there trying to have a quality of life for the citizens that live in our neighborhood. And I think that’s just wrong. I mean we’ve had illegal dope houses, we’ve had illegal garages and every one of those have gotten a citation for operating illegally. They’ve gotten a citation, they’ve been closed or they’ve put in some type of penalty for it. But we’re going to reward them by giving them an exception? That is wrong, this is plain outright wrong. You know we’ve had over 200 of our neighbors sign a petition to say that they are opposed to this so when do that count would you add the 200 names I got on this petition to that and you will see how much we are opposed to having this business in our neighborhood. And you know if they had come there legally, we don’t have a problem with them having a home in our neighborhood as long as it meets three or below or two below that’s fine but this person first of all we have people outside of our neighborhood coming into our neighborhood to establish businesses in our neighborhood which is a residential area. I don’t want to come home to a business. I leave my business when I leave work to come home to my residence so I can relax and we do not want businesses in our neighborhood. And that’s just plain it so I mean (applause) --- Mr. Mayor: Ya’ll please, no, please keep it down. Mr. Miles: --- and in conclusion I’m just saying I do not think that they need to be rewarded. I think we need to, we need to disapprove this particular exception for this particular home to be put in our neighborhood. If they come back and want to put a home in there and they go through the regular channels we’ll be able to find out if they are in our neighborhood, we’ll be able to offer the proper challenges we need to challenge for and in this particular case we’re challenging now because we just now found out they were there. We found out another one there’s about two weeks ago. You heard about the one that had 18 people in there? That was an illegal home. I’m not saying she’s associated to it but this is the type of atmosphere you have in our neighborhood in south Augusta where people feel like they can come and put in illegal places and run them and then get rewarded for them. That’s just ain’t right and I respectfully request that you deny this Special Exception. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Four minutes and forty-seven seconds. Mr. Mason: All right, so --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason? Mr. Mason: --- so just one quick question, Mr. Miles. Did you or any representative for that matter from the neighborhood association speak with Ms. Kingcannon and her folks in terms of trying to come to some reasonable resolution given your statement and of course opposition and given the fact that there’s already an established home? Did you all get together at all? Mr. Miles: Ms. Kingcannon and I spoke at two of the Planning Commission meetings that I attended and both of those meetings I just basically told her we did not want a business in the neighborhood and that if she was willing to, if they’re willing to have a Family Care Home in there that doesn’t require an exception to an R-1 coding I don’t have a problem with that. I’m 32 quite sure we have several. We’re not trying to keep people from having their older folks from being in a house or but we just do not feel that R-1 and exception to R-1 for residential which means that it is a business. We do not want that in our neighborhood. Mr. Mason : Mr. Mayor, in light of the conversation we’ve had in reference to this so far and my discussion with Ms. Kingcannon and here folks as well as the neighborhood association, I think the only fair thing to do at this particular time given the situation that we find ourselves in is to deny this petition that houses six individuals. And I think the neighborhood needs to understand that this does not alleviate Ms. Kingcannon from having a Personal Care Home that has three or less people in it. And so I just want to make sure that that you’re clear on that, that that can happen and there’s absolutely nothing that this body can do about that. So three or less but to the notion that protocol was not followed appropriately and we’re not going to reward that I’m going to make a motion that we deny this request in this particular case in my opinion, that houses six individuals in this particular home. Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a couple of questions. And I’m hearing about the business that has been run for five or six years and running a business that didn’t go through Planning and Zoning. So I guess there wasn’t a business license applied for either, I mean for tax purposes and none of that. Was this a volunteer type situation where people did not get paid? I’m just trying to find --- Ms. Kingcannon: Yes, sir, we had a permit. Yes, sir, we didn’t get a business license, we had a permit. Mr. Williams: You had a permit. Okay, not through Planning and Zoning. Who’d you get a permit from? Ms. Hill: We got our --- Mr. Williams: No, I don’t need you up here. I just need --- Ms. Kingcannon: From the state of Georgia. Mr. Williams: --- okay, you got a state. Ms. Hill: (inaudible). Mr. Williams: And I do know the state is opening up places around the CSRA that we have no control over if the state goes in and does something. I’m just a little disappointed to hear that this operation’s been going on for five or six years and it’s just coming to this body now. I’ll support anybody that’s right. I can’t support what is wrong. I agree with Mr. Mason that we, 33 you can be limited to I think three persons but that still has some criteria and I think Ms. our Licensing Department Director has said that the Fire Department and other agencies need to go through and make sure those things are in place before we can continue to operate. Now what happens I guess if we deny this, what happens to those six people until we get it certified for three? What happens to those? Mr. Mayor: Does anybody have, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: The Fire Department has already gone out to do the review. They went out with my staff. That’s why I said that they had a hardwired fire extinguisher, I mean a fire, yes they have the fire, not hardwired. But with regards to what happens if this is denied then they can have three people without having to get a, approval from this board. Again they had approval from the state of Georgia and have been operating for five to six years. They came in and are going through the process to get approval so that’s why they’re before you here today. Mr. Williams: So I thinking, and I’m just thinking if the facility meets the guidelines I guess for the state they don’t have to come by us at all I guess that’s what I’m hearing. But if they’ve got six people then I guess three people have to certainly relocate. But I’m thinking that the guidelines ought to before the first three could get there, there ought to be some guidelines to say they’ve got to have ‘x’ amount of bathrooms, ‘x’ amount of doors, ‘x’ amount of whatever. And that’s what I’m trying to find out from you. What needs to happen if this denied --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: --- thank you, Mr. Mayor, if this is denied before anybody can come in there and the Fire Department you say have been in. Ms. Wilson: Excuse me, what I’m saying is that you know the Fire Department has been in to do their inspection as well as my staff. What would need to happen we’re in the process of doing a couple of things. One, I am looking at the size requirements with regards to space per person in family, these personal care home units. Right now the state minimum is 80-square feet per person and we’re looking at increasing the size. That square foot minimum as well as some other criteria, we will be coming back to you to get approval to do that because local jurisdictions could have requirements that are more strict. Mr. Williams: Ms. Wilson, I need to know as you as the Director what does the guidelines say today? Ms. Wilson: Three people will be able to stay and three people would have to leave. Mr. Williams: Okay, just like it is now they don’t have to do anything else. Ms. Wilson: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: Okay, so you’ve been in there --- 34 Ms. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Williams: --- and that was my question. So three people will have to be relocated and three people can stay. Ms. Wilson: Yes. Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s what I need to know. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Wilson, we keep saying three people. Is that accurate in saying three people in the home? Wouldn’t it have to be three persons if I lived in my home I could bring three people into my home? I can set up three into another neighborhood and have employees come in and manage those people? Ms. Wilson: Um --- Mr. Hasan: Wouldn’t those people have to be in my home? I mean I can bring them into my home and I would be okay but I can’t necessarily put three in another home and then have people here not managing the home. Is that correct? Mr. Wilson: --- well, actually, there, you know, to be perfectly candid with you there are a lot of different loopholes that are currently in the state regs --- Mr. Hasan: But I’m correct with the loopholes. Ms. Wilson: --- but the bottom line, but the bottom line is, is that, you know, she has two people that come in an provide service. She could rent the home to one of the caretakers and three people could stay there without having to come before the board. Ms. Hasan: But that’s my point. Then the caretaker would be living there, living with the caretaker but that’s my point. Ms. Wilson: That’s correct but she has twenty --- Mr. Hasan: I’m sorry. Ms. Wilson: --- four hour service right now. Okay, she has twenty-four service right now but she could lease it to a person and they could have three people. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am, but I keep hearing about the three --- Ms. Wilson: Yes. 35 Mr. Hasan: --- and I wanted to clarify that somebody has to be a resident of that place you know and then they live within that home with that person (unintelligible). But the next thing is here is that you had a preliminary staff recommendation. The staff reserves its recommendation for all information that’s presented to the Planning Commission hearing. What does that mean because we’re before the body now to make a decision. What does that mean as we stand here today? Ms. Wilson: Well, in this case we reserve the recommendation because we wanted to see if there was any ability to work out some type of compromise with the residents of the community. One of the things that was noted at the Planning Board meeting was that and was also acknowledged by the residents was that they didn’t even know this home was there until we went out and posted a sign. So when the Planning Board heard all this, the recommendation that they made was for approval and that is our staff recommendation based on the fact that they do meet the criteria that we currently have in our ordinance and that we currently have that the state currently uses. We have to be very careful when denying Personal Care Homes. As was mentioned the state of Georgia as well as the whole United States are opening up a lot of communities with regards to allowing people to go and live anyplace. And the rules are getting more lenient not more stringent which I why I am looking at what we can do at least for the space criteria that a person needs because right now the minimum which is what we currently have in place is 80 square feet per person. So based on the criteria that we currently have in our ordinance which is what we would look at they meet all of that criteria for to be granted a Special Exception. So the staff recommendation was for approval. Mr. Hasan: Recommend for approval? Ms. Wilson: The staff recommendation for this was for approval. They have been in that neighborhood for over five years. Nobody even knew they existed which is what you kind of want to have when you have a family or personal care home located in your neighborhood. They don’t have any signage, they have appropriate outdoor space. They have appropriate parking, they have appropriate coverage with regards to personnel. The house is in great condition. We go in and see some stuff that’s really awful that people try to use for personal care homes. This is a well maintained home. So it meets the criteria that we currently have in our ordinance and it is consistent with the criteria and policies that the state has in place. Mr. Hasan: So how does with the criteria we have in our ordinance when you come up with issues like this how do you factor in the neighborhood covenants in your decision? Ms. Wilson: Well we don’t, we can’t, I’m sure the attorney can answer this a little bit more since he’s an attorney but the bottom line is that we don’t get into enforcing covenants. Those are private agreements that are enforced by the people that buy in neighborhoods. But I do know from talking to other attorneys that if you have a restrictive covenants the only way that you can eliminate a use of this nature is to be very explicit in the restrictive covenants that there will be no businesses, no kindergartens, no personal care homes, no nothing located within the restrictive covenants. But it is incumbent upon that neighborhood association and that person to go fight it out in court. We can’t use a restrictive covenants in decisions that we make because we don’t approve them. 36 Mr. Hasan: Okay. So do you see it as a business though --- Ms. Wilson: Well --- Mr. Hasan: --- even when you get down to the three, would you still try to give them a business license or wouldn’t be involved at that point? Ms. Wilson: --- well we you know as far as being able to get a license I personally and professionally feel that everybody should get a license. And as we catch people we ask them to come in and get a license. If nothing else it gives us a data base so that we can inspect the units to make sure that people are living in safe decent housing. That is one of the things that we are able to capture based on the business license component of this. But again if a person lives in the home you can have a home based business you know you can do that now. The zoning ordinance supports that. Then they could have three people living there and that would be allowed by right. Mr. Hasan: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Williams, I’ve recognized you twice. I’ll give you one, I’ll recognize you for a point of personal privilege and then I would ask the body to consider you know trying to get this wrapped up due to the fact that we’re got a lot of other people here who are here for other things out of respect for them. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: (inaudible). Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, you acknowledged me about 20 minutes ago. You said Mr. Mason, Mr. Hasan and then Mr. Lockett. Mr. Mayor: I apologize. Mr. Lockett then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Lockett: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: He can call for it all he, he don’t recognize me. I don’t know where he gets his ruling from. He’s going to make them up as he goes? Mr. Lockett: (inaudible) Mr. Mayor: Okay, but we will now have a vote, or Commissioners are ready to end discussion on this item due to the fact the question has been called for. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you recognized me before the question was called though. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll honor the one minute, Commissioner Williams. 37 Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Ms. Wilson, I just want to clarify something. You said that the people didn’t know the home was there. They didn’t know the business was there, they knew the home was there. So I want to clarify that. The other things you said was in your residence. Your residence means like Commissioner Hasan said where you live and you can bring in you can have 25 children if they’re related to you in your own home. Now I’ve been down here too long. Now if you’re renting a place and hiring someone, that’s a whole different ball game. So I just wanted to clear that up, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Kingcannon: I have a statement here to that I know how everyone is voting and how everyone is thinking but as I’ve said earlier my home is for six elderly women in a four bedroom home. And I am housing and protecting and elect people, these elderly ladies that live there. And, yes, they’ve lived there for five years. We haven’t tried to hide anything from anyone. We’ve been open to everyone. We have inspections every year where we have the nurses who come out and check our ladies. We have our quarterly appliance, they come out quarterly they check everything. We weren’t trying to hide anything from anyone. We didn’t know anything about the zoning until we went before for another home and that’s when we found out when we went to Zoning --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Kingcannon: --- that it needed to be zoned. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. The motion has been made and properly seconded. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, would the Clerk read the motion, please? Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, would you read the motion for clarity. The Clerk: The motion is to deny the petition by Ms. Mary Kingcannon on behalf of Joseph Kingcannon requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home located at 3908 Fairington Drive. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Lockett and Mr. G. Smith vote No. Motion Passes 7-2. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk. And, Ms. Wilson, while we still have you here, are the parties involved with agenda item number 18 ready to address that item? Ms. Wilson: Yes, all the parties are here. If I can switch over my files. This was quite a hefty meeting today. 38 Mr. Mayor: Okay. And then well prior to getting to that we had, I skipped over we had several had two additions to the agenda that I think Commissioners should have in front of them. Commissioners, have I got everybody’s attention? We have two additions to the agenda to accept the resignation of Donnie Smith District 7. Or, Madam Clerk, could you read these? The Clerk: Yes, sir. First addendum is to accept the resignation of Donnie Smith District 7 requested by Commissioner Grady Smith. Item 2 is to appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term of Donnie Smith District 7. Mr. Mayor: And we’ll take these one at a time. Do we have unanimous consent to add agenda item, addendum agenda item one. Okay, do we have unanimous consent agenda item, addendum agenda item two. Okay, we do not have unanimous consent on item two. Okay, Madam Clerk, on to number 18. The Clerk: PLANNING 18. Z-13-41 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to dismiss a petition by Verizon Wireless, on behalf of the Trustees of Masonic Hall of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunications tower per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing a .22 acre leased tower compound of a 5.21 acre tract known as 3201 Wrightsboro Road. (Tax Map 042-1-034-01-0) DISTRICT 3 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson, I hope you have somebody that’s going to massage your feet at the end of the day since you’ve been on them long enough at this point. Over to you again. Mr. Speaker: If the vote goes well, I’ll offer to do that. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: Okay. We are, okay, we have a petition today. The applicant is Verizon Wireless and the property owner is the Trustees of the Masonic Hall of Augusta, Georgia. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception per Section 28-A 5C for 105 foot tall Monopole Telecommunications Tower on the rear of the Masonic Temple located at 3201 Wrightsboro Road. Okay, right, we’ve got it up now. Again the property is located where you see the Z-04- 14. The subject property is 5.21 acre tract. It is located on the north side of Wrightsboro Road between Damascus Road and Sibley Road at the intersections of Jackson Road. The property is zoned R-3B (Multi-Family Residential) and contains the multi-family, excuse me, the Masonic Lodge and surface parking lot in addition the rear half of the lot which is wooded. The surrounding area is urbanized. And you can see this as indicated on the map. It includes commercial establishments, apartment complexes and Georgia Regents University’s Athletic Complex. The commercial establishments front Wrightsboro Road and the apartment complexes are located directly west, north and south of the subject property. The GRU Athletic Complex is located immediately east of the property and the area zoning patterns reflect that these land uses 39 include neighborhood business, general business, multi-family residential and multiple family residential. The site is located approximately 3,865 feet from the western end of the Daniel Field Airport which is located on a 152 acre tract at the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Highland Avenue. It is of course a general aviation airport. The major facilities there include the two runways, two hangers and ten T-Hanger outdoor tie-down areas and a control tower. Turner Flights Flight Training, airplane storage, fuel and maintenance services are provided by this airport. And the airport operates under the direction of a 13-member General Aviation Commission. Those are the multi-family units that are surrounding the property, commercial. The applicant representing Verizon Wireless is requesting a Special Exception. They would like to add 105 tall Monopole Telecommunication Tower. They intend to lease 100 x 100 area of the northwest corner of the property to locate this tower. The tower site would be serviced in addition by a 30-foot wide ingress and egress utility easement running parallel to the west property line. Per the zoning ordinance items that we looked at when evaluating this request are as follows: The topography of the site. It’s located between the elevations of 370 and 400 feet above mean sea level. The lowest elevations are located on Wrightsboro Road fronting and rising at about 388 feet. The tower height: Again they’re requesting a tower that would 100 feet tall with a five foot tall lightning rod for a total of 105 feet. The base of the tower would be located in an elevation of 402 feet above mean sea level. Distance to residences: The proposed tower would be located at least 100 feet from any residential structure. I would also meet the setback requirements of at least 50 feet from any property line which borders the single family residential property. The nature of the surrounding land uses: The surrounding areas are urbanized. Part of the city as I indicated earlier includes commercial establishments and multi- family apartments and houses. The topography ranges between 330 and 410 feet. The surrounding tree coverage the rear of the subject property has a concentration of trees of which would have to be removed in order to make room for the tower. The trees are currently scattered throughout the surrounding area with concentrations at the apartment complexes and the single home locations. The design of the structure: The tower compound would be located in the midst of a strand of existing trees. It would be enclosed by a six-foot tall metal fence with fabric cover and barbed wire top. Landscaping will be provided around the entire perimeter of the site and will include Leland cypress if this is approved. The ability to accommodate additional antennas: The tower’s designed and would be allowed to accommodate up to three carriers in addition to Verizon Wireless. Ingress and Egress: The compound would be serviced by a 30-foot wide utility easement which runs parallel to the west side of the property and the availability of towers and other tall structures within a half mile. According to a letter from the Verizon Wireless Design Engineer Ralph Richter the proposed tower is needed in order to fill service gap and provide adequate capacity. A thorough search was done and this is where they decided they would like to locate. The officials from the Daniel Field Airport are here and they believe that there are a number of conflicts that impact the airspace which they use for training. With that I will allow Verizon to present their case and then I will come back with our final findings and recommendation. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and if you keep it to five minutes, please, sir, and then I’ll also give allotted time for representatives of Daniel Field and I believe there’s another. Okay. How about ten minutes. I’m trying to give fair and equal and balanced. 40 Mr. Speaker: I appreciate it. Before I begin, may I ask a quick question? I was just handed this final staff recommendation that lists five things that staff is recommending here. And I’m noting that’s different than what I got in the letter from staff that Ms. Wilson signed last week. And I didn’t know if that had changed. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson: What was received, what we sent out in the letter was a preliminary recommendation. As noted this item came to you without recommendation necessarily from the Planning Board. What you have before you is a final recommendation which I’m allowed to do (unintelligible) because that’s why we provide you with a copy. It is not significantly different than what was originally sent. It’s just more detailed. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and if you could state your name and address for the record, please, sir. th Mr. Rotenstreich: Yes, sir. My name is Andy Rotenstreich. My address is 420 20 Street Northern Birmingham. I’m here on behalf of Verizon Wireless. The owner of the property is the trustees of the Masonic Hall of the city of Augusta. I’d like to show you if I could why Verizon Wireless needs this site. Ms. Wilson mentioned that is was due to capacity and coverage. This is the coverage aspect of it. If you look at this propagation map what you’re seeing is Wrightsboro Road here. You see a bunch of colors. The green and the white labels represent an existing Verizon Wireless sites around that area. Now they may not be Verizon Wireless towers but Verizon may just be a tenant on those towers. The green is what we refer to as the end building coverage. That’s when you can use your Verizon phone or Verizon IPAD or laptop inside buildings in those green areas. As you get further from the towers the radio signal dissipates you get into the yellow that’s what we refer to as in vehicle coverage. And then when you get in the red area that’s when you have to go outside, stand on your left leg raise your right arm and hope you can connect a call. It’s the red we’re trying to change here and the proposed site is directly on top of that red area. We’re trying to change the red to green. If this site is approved that’s the coverage you’ll get from this one site at a low height of 105 feet. Now as always Verizon Wireless looked in the area for existing towers for which we could hang our antennas on. That’s called collocation. It’s required in your ordinance. And as Ms. Wilson told you earlier we did an exhaustive look to get on existing towers but the bottom line is we’re basically on most of the tall structures that would work for us. So because there was no existing tall tower or existing tall structure building that would work, our only alternative is to come and request to build a new tower. Now, you guys have a zoning ordinance in place and we have gone through and met all the requirements of your ordinance as Ms. Wilson said with regard to setbacks, heights, lighting requirements and collocation. And the things I’d like to specifically point out which Ms. Wilson already went through the entire list for me was a Special Exception factors. We meet all ten factors that are set out in your ordinance to allow the Special Exception for this tower, every one of them. This is an aerial view of that general area I showed you on the map. The area in red is what we refer to as our search area. In order to get the coverage we need we have to have a site within that red box. That’s the area we looked at. There were three collocation or roof top options that we also looked at but those weren’t high enough to get us the coverage we needed. Now I know there’s been a lot of talk about Daniel Field and their 41 concerns. I think it’s important to note that the FAA has reviewed this which is the governing body that reviewed all towers across the country. That is the policing body for all of these types of structures. Here is a copy of the report that the FAA issued. It’s entitled Determination of No Hazards to Air Navigation which is self-explanatory. Now the FAA is not saying that we can build whatever we want here. The FAA is not giving us the green light to do whatever we want; they are only saying that we can build up to 105 feet. The FAA acknowledges and we acknowledge that anything over 105 feet so 106 feet more could be a danger to air navigation. But we are not proposing anything more than the FAA is giving us the green light to do. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: May I ask, is there a date on this document that you put in front of us? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. th Mr. Rotenstreich: It’s dated April 18of 2014. Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: The way that you have the paper sitting there was something that I needed to see below that. It says that if certain things are met and so I wanted to be able to see the whole thing. Mr. Rotenstreich: Can you read it there? Are you looking at this aeronautical study? Are you looking at the provided the following conditions if any are met? Mr. Mason: Yes. Mr. Rotenstreich: There’s a colon there and there’s nothing written so there are no conditions. That’s a standard language. If the FAA had conditions then they would then list them after the colon. Now I think it’s also important to note on here the portion that’s highlighted as well, this aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards. That’s a fact, does not exceed it and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Not that it might not be, not that it could not be, it would not be a hazard to air navigation. There’s been some question that was brought up in the letter that I received earlier from Ms. Wilson regarding the suggestion that the petition be dismissed due to the fact as Ms. Wilson’s letter stated that the petitioner has failed to establish that it is the authorized representative of the owner of the property. The owner of the property is the Trustees of the Masonic Hall of the City of Augusta. We have a copy of the deed, the deed of the property and it shows the owner as the Trustees of the Masonic Hall. Not an individual board of the hall not an individual part of the Masons Lodge but the Trustees itself. A question has arisen. Do we have the authority to be here? The deed is in the name of the trustee board. The trustee board th met on May 16 2013 regarding this matter and these are the folks that were present. There are 42 fifteen trustees. Fourteen of them had signed this acknowledgment that they were at the meeting. Here are the minutes of that meeting, the specific line being the second bullet point under the cell tower update. Brother Prowdy called for constituent lodge’s presentation and approval. Motion carries. This was brought before our lease, Verizon’s lease with the trustees was brought before th their meeting on May 16 2013. All those people that signed in were present and here are the minutes from that meeting showing that it was approved. So we believe we have a signed lease, we believe that we have the authority to be here on behalf of the owner of the property. So with that said, I know I’ve thrown a lot at you but I wanted to make sure you guys knew where we were coming from, why we’re here before you as we could not find an existing structure or tower that we could use. Our only option is to be here. It’s important to note that we’re only asking for what the FAA is allowing us and also important to note that the tree height of where we’re going ranged between 70 and 85 feet. We’re going 105 feet. The pole is 100 feet. The lightning rod is five feet so the top of the pole is 15-20 feet above the trees that had been there since God put them there. So I just want you to understand, yes we know we’re near the airport we’re not as close as the 133-foot tower is which is twice as close but we’re within the trees and only 15 feet above the trees. We’re not asking for more than the FAA has allowed. So if you have any questions I’ll be happy to try and answer. And I’d just like to reserve some time for my fellow applicants here. Mr. Mayor: First, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and then Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Excuse me, Commissioner Fennoy first. Mr. Fennoy: Brother Lockett if you are, I’ve got a question. Mr. Rotenstreich: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: You know everybody that I have run across that has services with people other than Verizon they talk about switching to Verizon because they get service that they can’t get with other providers. And I think that’s good for Verizon, however, if this is true I mean and I’ve been in the deep parts of Georgia where on dirt roads and I could still pick up my Verizon phone and I have clear conversations with the people on the other line. This being the case, what is that ya’ll are trying to do? I mean what’s the --- Mr. Rotenstreich: Why do we need the site? Mr. Fennoy: Right. Mr. Rotenstreich: There’s two reasons. Actually Ms. Wilson kind of mentioned them. One is the coverage. Part of its coverage which are those colored maps I showed you. We’re trying to make sure not only that there’s some coverage but we’ve got to have continuous coverage inside the homes, inside the businesses where the customers are and they need the service. That signal strength dissipates as it moves away so we’ve got to fill in those gaps with new sites. The other issue with this particular site is what we call capacity. We have an existing site about two miles away maybe a little less. It’s getting overloaded with calls and surfing on the internet. These antennas can only handle so much information at one time and when everybody or populations grow in that area or major traffic is in that area it overloads the site. 43 So part of the reason for this site is to off load the capacity on a neighboring site while at the same time providing some added coverage in the area which we need based on those maps. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. And what my real concern is that about I think about 20 years ago a commercial pilot looking for Bush Field landed at Daniel Field. And he was a commercial pilot and I remember what happened in McDuffie County where I think the pilot hit a telephone wire and it caused the plane to crash. And my concern --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Fennoy: --- my concern is about the number of non-commercial flights. And even during the Boshear we don’t play golf at The Patch because we’re afraid of the golf balls might hit the plane and cause the plane to crash. I mean they close, they don’t close during the Boshear so what my concern is whether this presents, I know what the FAA says but my concern is whether this is a real concern and threat and safety for the because this area’s so heavily populated or whether the threat is real or whether it’s just imaginary. Mr. Rotenstreich: Well, and again those are the same things that the FAA looks at. And that’s why they’re saying we can’t build a 200-foot tower there, we can’t even build a 110 feet. We can only build 105 and we’re only going 15 feet to 20 feet above the tree line. Now we actually had that same question because we’re heard what the Daniel Field or the Augusta Airport Commission’s saying. And Mr. Owens here actually went for a flight, was invited to and went with the flight with the folks from the airport. And he’s got a video showing how high you are and that you really don’t even come over where the tower’s going to be, you come over the sports complex. So you know yes, what you’re going to hear I believe which is what we heard at the Planning Commission is a lot of maybe’s, possibly’s, might be’s but what you’re looking for in the FAA what you’re looking at in the FAA is a would not be safety hazard. And I believe again based on your ordinance we need to rely on what the facts are, what the law says and the evidence before you, which is here from the FAA. So I think there’s going to a lot of that going on. I just wanted to make sure that you had that in front of you. And Mr. Owens would be happy to show you the video that he took while he took that flight to show you we didn’t even go over where the tower is going and how high above where the tower is going to be that he actually was on the final approach if you’d like to see that. Mr. Fennoy: Thank you. Mr. Rotenstreich: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: I understand. Thank you. Two things, I guess, Ms. Wilson, I wanted to find out. I understand that the FAA did approve, approve it based on their recommendation here, 44 or observation if you will. But I wanted to find out as far as the legality of this matter with that being said I understand that it is, you know, they’re asking for a Special Exception. But if this was denied okay, by this Commission and they decide to file an appeal I know you don’t know the likelihood but they can do that, correct? Ms. Wilson: They can do it just like Daniel Field can do it. Mr. Johnson: Right, okay. In that appeal I guess asking you a question that you can’t answer. And this is really to see what is the likelihood of it being anything from preventing us technically by law from actually allowing them to do this. And I don’t know, maybe Mr. Brown can answer that question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Brown: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown: Thank you. The state of Georgia has recently passed legislation regarding the sighting, construction, modification of wireless towers. I can assure you 100% that this governing body is not bound to agree with the decision of the FAA in regarding to the letter presented by counsel. That is simply a letter saying that the FAA at that point of their look at that site they have ruled that it is a no hazard. It is not the final word as to whether the zoning action should be taken. In fact the law which became effective on July 1, 2014 which is consistent with the law prior to July 1, 2014 it says that it is not the intent of this chapter to limit, okay I’m citing Georgia Code Annotated Section 36-66B as in boy, dash 2. It states among other things it is not the intent of this Chapter to limit or preempt the scope of local governing government’s review of zoning land use or permitting applications for the sighting of wireless facilities or wireless support structures or to require local government to excise, exercise zoning powers. The FAA ruling is the beginning of the process. It’s what the applicant has to do prior to coming to Augusta. If it was the only word they wouldn’t be before Augusta. In fact part of the proposed legislation which did not become law was to say that local governing bodies cannot at any navigable requirements other than what is required by the FAA. That was proposed to be in the legislation. Georgia rejected that. Federal standards also particularly the Telecommunication Act of 1996 Section 3327C provides that governing bodies continue to have their power to zone as to the sighting, construction or modification of these cell, wireless cell phone towers. There are only five limitations that we have from the Telecommunication Act. We cannot have a statute or have rulings that say you can have cell towers nowhere within your jurisdiction, we can’t do that. We can’t discriminate, we can’t say Verizon can’t come but AT&T or T-Mobile can come. We have to decide within a reasonable period of time. We cannot say well we’re not going to let it because there are health concerns that we have. These are the reasons, these are the limitations we have. But this is a zoning issue and the zoning issue and the zoning powers remain with the governing body. Counsel is making his best case. Of course he would like for you to believe that you don’t need to worry about FAA have protected all the safeties that you need to worry about. That is contrary to the law. But I do believe there are some opponents here who are probably best qualified to address any issues of safety, if there are any, to you. You have the people that this governing body through its ordinance has placed in charge of Daniel Field to investigate to run the airport and to insure the safety. There are 45 opponents here if they, I’m sure they came they did come to the Planning Commission they outlined, they outlined their position. Additionally one other issue while we’re up that counsel did address which we believe is no longer an issue, there was an issue before the Planning Commission that said, the Planning Commission did not believe that Verizon Wireless was authorized to make this application because of infighting between the six lodges that make up this Masonic Temple. Since that time as of today the Planning Director did receive an email and the attorney for the group that was against Verizon making this application as far as the Masonic Temple issue is here today to make a 30-second statement that they have withdrawn their objection. So there’s no longer an issue before you as to whether or not they are authorized to make this petition. Mr. Johnson: Okay, you pretty much answered that question. Primarily I understand that just from the board they’re erring on the side of caution to make sure that nothing will happen as a result of that tower. And I understand that it’s only about 10 or 15 feet higher than the tallest tree there in that area so it is upon this body to make that recommendation. And I just wanted to be clear of the legal aspect of it so we understood up here what we were bound to and also the repercussion to that in fact that if something did or we decided to make our decision based on what was requested here today what would be the consequence of that. So thank you for clearing that up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rotenstreich: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to those just to make sure we have it all on the record? Mr. Mayor: Yes, you can. Mr. Rotenstreich: Thank you very much. I appreciate Mr. Brown bringing up the Georgia statute. I’m very familiar with it was very involved in its drafting. Mr. David Kirk’s ugly mug is photographed with the governor while he was signing it into law so we’re very familiar with it. But we also need to focus on the federal law which he did mention. The main issue here is evidence, substantial evidence to base your denial and the evidence before you is the FAA writing. So that’s what you have. Everything else you’re going to hear is might be’s, maybe’s which is not evidence. That where I think the counsel might could run into some legal issue. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’m going, we’ll go to Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Guilfoyle then I’ll hear from the representative of the Masonic Lodges. Then I’ll hear from the representative from Daniel Field. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I was going to do about a half hour ago was offer a disclaimer. I see you have Brother Lockett listed on here. I just wanted to let you know that he’s not my brother, not a known relative, just another outstanding Lockett. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Well said. Well said but he’s somebody’s brother. Okay, Commissioner Guilfoyle. 46 Mr. Guilfoyle: I’ve been trying to get him to teach me that secret handshake but he wouldn’t do it. But I understand listening to the attorney as well as listening to our staff and our attorney. Has there been once that you actually reached out to Daniel Field in proposing lowering the tower in the past year versus the past week? Mr. Rotenstreich: In the past two days we have but we also, let me offer this. When we met with the Planning Commission we offered to light the tower which the FAA is not requiring us to do. And that offer still stands today for us to light it so it makes it more visible. Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. As far as, Mr. Mayor, I’m not a pilot, I’m not an attorney. I would like to hear from the Daniel Field Airport. We already listened to our staff; I would love to hear from the representatives of Daniel Field, please. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll tell you with all due respect, Commissioner Guilfoyle, I had said we’ll hear from the representative of Masonic Lodges and then we’ll hear from at your, the way I called it we’ll go that route. But so could we hear from the representative, Mr. Lyons. And if you could state your name and address for the record, please, sir. Mr. Lyons: Charles H.S. Lyons, III of 336 Telfair Street, an attorney here in Augusta. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I’m here today on behalf of three of the Masonic bodies, Georgia Commandery No. I, Adoniram Council No. I and Augusta Chapter No. I and I just want to make a brief statement concerning those three bodies. Those are the three bodies that went before the Planning Commission and took a position that was in opposition to the position that Verizon has here today. We have stated that Verizon does not have in the past authority to request a special exception on the property up there on Washington [sic] Road. Our reasoning is that the trustees of the Masonic Hall of Augusta did not obtain the requisite approval for a lease with Verizon Wireless of the East LP. We don’t believe that there was a quorum of the trustees that voted for the approval of a lease for Verizon Wireless of the East LP as required by the legislation that created the lodge, the hall. In order to agree to lease the property at issue, two-thirds of the Masonic Lodges would have to approve the lease. The three Masonic bodies that I represent have not given such approval as required by the legislation that was established by the Masonic Hall of the City of Augusta. The three Masonic bodies that I represent have requested the records of the minutes and the sign-in sheet and have not received that information. These three bodies have never received the lease from the trustees. Nor were the three bodies asked to approve the lease from Verizon of the East LP as required by the statute creating the Masonic Hall of the City of Augusta. However, we have reached out to the other side, the other three bodies regarding this particular matter. As a show of our good will, we are not objecting to the request for a special exception on the property. There have been discussions with the chapter council commander and the other Masonic bodies. We will continue our efforts at settlement negotiations. We are not conceding the issues mentioned here today or any other future potential issues by a willingness not to oppose the request for a special exception. We are specifically reserving these issues and objections should settlement negotiations fail. I’ve said that just to put our position on the record but we are not here today opposing the special exception request by Verizon. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Now if we can hear from a representative from Daniel Field. 47 And in the interest of due process and equal time if you could keep it to ten minutes, please, sir. Mr. Martin: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Tim Martin and I live at 206 Simmons Place here in Augusta. I’m the Vice Chairman of the Daniel Field General Aviation Commission. The chairman of our commission has asked me to present to you the serious concerns held by our members and the management and staff of Daniel Field and the many pilots who use Daniel Field about the construction of the Verizon tower behind the Masonic Lodge at 3201 Wrightsboro Road. Let me inject here I am not a pilot. I don’t know many of the technical issues involved with piloting and since I’ve been given ten minutes at the end of what I’m saying I’m going to ask our airport manager to address many of the technical issues. According to Verizon there is really nothing for you to consider because the Federal Aviation Administration has already approved their request. We however believe that in making your decision on this zoning issue, you have the obligation to consider safety and health issues that were overlooked by Verizon and the FAA and which affect the citizens of Augusta Richmond County as well as pilots and passengers. I say overlooked because no one involved in the study to which they refer bothered to seek input from the Daniel Field Airport Manager. In short, is it really safe to build a 105 foot tower less than a mile from the most often used runway at the airport? First, there is a potential for a catastrophic accident because the proposed location is directly under where a pilot begins his final turn to approach runway 11 which is adjacent to Wrightsboro Road. This is a blind turn that the pilot makes because he must raise his right wing to complete the turn thereby eliminating his sight of the proposed tower. Numerous factors such as visibility, wind, aircraft malfunction or pilot error can affect this turn and if it is low, the possibility of striking the tower increases significantly and if that tower is struck, not only would the pilot and passengers suffer serious injury or death, citizens on the ground in nearby schools and neighborhoods and in businesses would likely suffer the same fate. Likewise, the construction of the tower at this location unnecessarily increases the possibility of an accident for a pilot taking off from this same runway in the direction of that tower should he experience an engine malfunction or have to look into direct sunlight in the late afternoon. No warning light at the top of a 105 foot tower could warn a pilot of the imminent danger he faces and again the results could be catastrophic. A major obligation that Daniel Field has as a public airport is to provide flight instruction to student pilots and a necessary skill the student must learn is the ability to make the final turn and approach for landing. It doesn’t make sense to put a major safety hazard immediately under the location where the student must learn the skills necessary to make the turn. Finally, one of the most significant services provided by Daniel Field are the flights to deliver organs being donated to patients in life-threatening situations at our local medical facilities. Most of those flights come in from Atlanta and land on runway 11. Because time is so critical in preserving these organs pilots will try to flatten out their approaches so as to be able to use as much of that short runway as possible when landing. Putting a tower right in the path of a pilot trying to make such a landing is simply inviting an accident to happen. It has been suggested that Bush Field can be used. Well, that’s not an acceptable alternative because it adds a minimum of thirty minutes organ transportation time, time a patient doesn’t have. There are other numerous arguments I can make and there are many pilots who if given the opportunity would mince no words in telling you what they think of this proposal. But I will close with this. The best intentioned use of the revenue from Verizon is not worth any potential for a catastrophic human tragedy and the ensuing financial consequences. Thank you and I’d like to 48 turn it over to the Daniel Field Airport Manager to address any issues that you may have. Thank you. Mr. Steve Gay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I am, and let me state emphatically for the record the temporary interim Daniel Field Manager and after this episode, it may be short lived. Be that as it may – Mr. Mayor: And if I can stop you, you’ve got four minutes left on the time just to allow for equal and then we can have questions of the technical nature should we -- Mr. Gay: Very good. Thank you. The Part 77 study that Verizon has referred you to today, I would like to point out for the record that that is a Part 77 study conducted by Daniel th Field. Verizon’s Part 77 study expires on the 19 of this month. In order for Verizon to extend that study they needed to apply 15 days ago to keep that study alive, therefore, at this point Daniel Field becomes the active sponsor, if you will, of the Part 77 study. That is a very critical point and fact that he put up Daniel Field’s study and that is not the study that Verizon conducted. What is of great interest is that in September of 2012 Verizon hired a company, actually under the name of Alltel to come in and study the site. The site has been presented to you as part of the official record. No contact was made with Daniel Field to discuss how this tower would impact the safe operations of aircraft using Daniel Field. Actually the report advises Verizon exactly what to do to have the tower approved without further FAA intervention. Additionally I would like to point out that as Mr. Brown stated, state regulations we as the City of Augusta, the owner of the airport, the sponsor of the airport, are under federal mandate, not state, federal mandate to protect the air space surrounding the airport. We are in jeopardy of losing federal funding to the tune of $150,000 dollars per year if we do not meet those federally mandated requirements. Let me give you a quick example. How much time, Mayor? Mr. Mayor: A minute and ten seconds. Mr. Gay: (inaudible) So this is indeed a very, very serious matter. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I hate to cut you off -- Mr. Gay: That’s it. Mr. Mayor: -- but once again just trying to give equal time to everybody to be – Mr. Gay: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: -- completely fair and unbiased. Do we have any questions for Daniel Field? Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As far as, I guess, Steve, the one that was just speaking. 49 Mr. Gay: Correct. Mr. Guilfoyle: You are responsible for the air space. Can you go into detail what does that mean for people that doesn’t have anything to do with flying or an airport? Mr. Gay: Sure. There is a space surrounding an airport and if I could, I’d like to ask Mr. Tim Weegar to step forward who is much more capable of explaining conical and would you mind doing that on our behalf? But there are various surfaces surrounding the airport that have to be protected. Horizontal surfaces, conical surface, Tim, would you come – Mr. Mayor: And, sir, if you could remember to go through the Chair on that to call Mr. Weegar up, that’s sort of what the Chair does. Mr. Gay: Would you please call Tim Weegar up? Thank you. It seems like we’ve got a lot of different chiefs. Mr. Tim Weegar: Tim Weegar. I’m the Director of Operations at Augusta Regional Airport. So the FAA has Part 77 surface. Another regulation. There’s hundreds of regulations in the FAA. Daniel Field has an air space map that goes back to 1982. It needs to be updated. The Airport Director for Augusta Regional Airport indicated it needs to be updated with proper land use and height limitations. From what I can gather from a pilot’s side, because I haven’t flown out of Daniel Field in a long time but I got my commercial license there, there’s constraints there already. If this gets approved, this is another big constraint and it falls within a horizontal surface of the airport on Part 77 of the FAA regulations. Now technically there may not be a penetration there but you’ve heard from the attorney Wayne it really defers back, I believe, to this governing body to, you know, look at what’s the rest of the story. The rest of the story is it is a safety issue. FAA looks at, they just look at okay, does it interfere with the federal airways, does it interfere with this or that, you know, and then it really, they drop it off. I can tell you for 29 years in this business I’ve yet to see one that comes back where the FAA has said there is a hazard. I’ve seen a lot of studies but I’ve yet to see one in 29 years where they’ve said it is a hazard. It’s always been a hazard where there’s no hazard, if you will. And it refers back to the local body. I don’t know if that helps. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Wayne. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. Steve, as far as, I was told that the tower is basically in direct line with the runway. I couldn’t tell you what number. Mr. Gay: What runway? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. Mr. Gay: Runway 11 and we have an overhead we could put up. I don’t know that we have time. We also have, Collin, if you could bring this board and it clearly shows you the tower in relation to the landing point on the runway. Does that make sense? You’re coming in from the west – 50 Mr. Mayor: I would, I would have to guess that that’s not to scale. Mr. Gay: We made the tower a little larger than perhaps we should have. Mr. Speaker: I’ve got a paper clip you can use that would be a little more accurate. Mr. Gay: Does that answer your question? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes. Mr. Gay: -- coming in from the west. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, it does and as far as, is this everybody that is against the tower or – Mr. Mayor: And I was going to call for a show of hands as to the opposition. Mr. Guilfoyle: Deke, I’m not trying to take over your – Mr. Mayor: You’re welcome to it if you like. Mr. Guilfoyle: Don’t want it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you. I have no expertise in aviation whatsoever and so I’ve got to rely on the information that I’m hearing here to try to help make a good decision for our community. I also, if I could, Mr. Mayor, we have a young lady in the audience who can offer some information in terms of cell towers. I’d like to bring her up through you if I could, Renee, if she’s still here. Mr. Mayor: Renee. You’ve got a last name there. Mr. Mason: Well, she’s give her name for the record I guess. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Renee deMedicis: Hi there. My name is Renee deMedicis and I operate 1230 am radio and anyway we’re within one mile of Daniel Village and my tower is 198 feet and we’ve never been contacted by Verizon. We’d be more than happy if ya’ll don’t approve this that to give them some space on our tower or at least talk to them about it. I just wanted to mention that. They never contacted me so there you go. Mr. Mason: Yeah, I wanted to put that out there and we just want to do what’s best and what’s right. Now I fully understand, you know, the FAA stating that, you know, from their 51 standpoint there is no issue but at the same time we as commissioners, we’ve got to make a decision up here that any deviation from that statement really comes right back to us as a body. I’m of the opinion that I’d rather err on the side of caution to certainly insure that there is no issues and certainly if there wasn’t a tower there we wouldn’t have that as a problem. So the reason why I wanted to, and she may have already said something to you but the reason why I wanted to bring her up because that offers a potential, another option to look at, I’m not sure, but I’m not sure which way this thing is going to go today but I want to be fair to both sides of the aisle and I certainly want to do what’s best in the interest of our community as far as safety goes. Mr. Rotenstreich: Mr. Mason, I totally understand. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Rotenstreich: I’m sorry. I apologize. Yes, sir. I don’t believe her site is located in that search area that I showed you. That’s why I put that map up there which is why we haven’t talked to her. That’s why it wouldn’t work for us. The other issue is I just am looking for you guys to follow your ordinance and follow the federal law. That’s all I’m asking. There’s been no evidence that there’s a safety issue. Mr. Martin has got up. He said there’s a potential safety issue. Many things can affect a pilot’s turn. The tower would unnecessarily increases the possibility of a problem. And when we get down to it, this tower literally is 15 to 20 feet above the trees that are already there. I mean that’s less than me to you. So is this really a hazard or is it making anything worse? It’s 20 feet and we’re only needing to be 20 feet above so we can get the signal out because the trees will block the signal. We are not asking for anything more than the FAA is saying is safe. We ask that you just follow your ordinance, follow the federal law. T Mobile was granted the ability to build a 133 foot tower a thousand feet from the runway. All we’re asking to do and under the federal law it’s required we be treated the same way. That’s all we’re asking. Thank you. Mr. Gay: Mr. Mayor, can I have – Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you the last word here and then I believe we’ll have given ample time to all sides and heard evidence on either side and then I would look for a motion by the commission based on the evidence heard today on this agenda item. Yes, sir. Mr. Gay: I do stand corrected on the T Mobile, I believe it’s a T Mobile tower thirty degrees off the center line, 133 feet above the ground but only 70 feet because it sits in a hole above our runway threshold. But this I’d like to say in closing. I’ve been at Daniel Field nearly 34 years probably one of the longest standing employees of Daniel Field and, you know, we’ve been accused by various folks of this being an emotional matter and let me tell you, it’s an emotional matter. I’ve pulled dead bodies from airplanes at Daniel Field, on and around Daniel Field. I’ve watched people climb down from the tops of pine trees. Pine trees give. Steel poles do not. We have over 150 signatures. Every pilot we have talked to, we have numerous I think six or eight pilots who have lost an engine departing on the opposing runway, that had that tower been there, would have lost their life. Yeah, I’m pretty emotional about this. I think it’s a serious matter and my goal is to not pull another dead body from an aircraft that hits something that we do not have to erect. Thank you very much. 52 Mr. Rotenstreich: And that’s why we’re offering to light the tower. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Gay: For heaven sakes a light – Mr. Mayor: Okay, I understand. Mr. Gay: I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Keep it civil, ya’ll. But I would, I’m going to, after I call for a show of hands that are in opposition to this rezoning request, could I see a show of hands and, Madam Administrator, could we get a count on that? Ms. Davis: 36. Mr. Johnson: 36. Mr. Mayor: 36. Can we have a show of hands here in support? Mr. Mayor: Okay, 3. Okay, Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you for being here today and Brad, I know this is important to Verizon and I know it’s important to the Masonic Hall as well but I grew up and still my parents live on Monte Sano which is where most of the planes do come over and we cringe every time a plane comes over our two-story house and I’m not sure how many feet that is but I agree with our advice from the Daniel Field Aviation Commission and Planning and Zoning so I’d like to make a motion to dismiss. Mr. Mayor: Correct me if I’m wrong. The proper motion to make would be to deny. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: To concur with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. Mr. Brown: The motion would be as you stated, Mr. Mayor, to deny. The dismissal is off the table because of, there’s no objection of bringing the, asking for the exception by their fellow lodge members so now you’re considering the substantive application, whether you’re going to approve it or deny it. Ms. Davis: I’d like to make a motion to deny, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Smith: Second. 53 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: And ya’ll please hold your applause. I appreciate the enthusiasm but I try to run a tight ship. Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item which I believe would be 24? The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 24. Motion to approve the proposal submitted by Modern Business Systems, Inc. for providing and installing Mobile Filing and Storage Systems for the Tax Assessors Office and the Finance Department and two new Lektrivers for the Finance Department. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I think you had a question about this one. Mr. Lockett: I have several, Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask the Recreation Director if he’s still here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Levine, Commissioner Lockett has a few questions. Mr. Levine: I’d like to defer to Donna Williams. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Lockett: I don’t want to talk to Donna. I want to talk to you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett would prefer for you to answer these questions. Mr. Lockett: No, I would in a minute I would like to ask Donna a question also. My question is why do we consolidate two departments under one request? That’s agenda item number 24. Why do we separate the Tax Assessors office from Finance? Do I need to talk to Donna? Mr. Mayor: I don’t think Parks and Rec is part of the request. Mr. Lockett: Yeah, basically I want to find out who approved this before it got here because we’ve had such a difficult time getting the approval for the Clerk of Commission’s office. And I’m trying to find out who is responsible for approving these things because I’m really concerned because it’s my understanding that we still haven’t reached a final agreement with what the Clerk of Commission is going to get. Is that correct, Tim? Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir, we’re still, Ms. Bonner has met with Modern Business last week and we’re just getting the final drawings together for Ms. Bonner to review and the cut sheets for her to review. 54 Mr. Lockett: Well, when is that going to be ready for Ms. Bonner to review? Mr. Schroer: I believe it’s the end of this week or the first part of next week, sir. Mr. Lockett: And it’s my understanding that is was just determined that the Finance Department the equipment that they had it was, wasn’t better to keep or to get rid of it. But this is something that recently happened so how did we get to this point on that but yet in still we’re still having discussions on the Clerk’s office. Mr. Schroer: I think they’re running the concurrent path, sir. We’ve been looking at the th space for the 8 floor for the Finance and for the Tax Assessors Office. And it was determined that the equipment that we had in the current Finance and the Accounting Department would not fit and was that was built in 1996 or installed in 1996 --- Mr. Lockett: Right. Mr. Schroer: --- (inaudible) it really wouldn’t survive the move. I think they’re moving concurrently, sir. Mr. Lockett: Well, who is going to make the determination as to whether the Clerk of Commission gets what she’s requesting for her department? Who’s going to make that determination? Ms. Allen: The --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we actually have a meeting scheduled with Ms. Bonner tomorrow, I think at 4:00 o’clock, to actually review the shelving and the file system for Ms. Bonner. And Steve Cassell and Modern Business will be meeting with Ms. Bonner. Mr. Lockett: Okay, my last comment is I hope that on tomorrow that her request will go . I move to approve Mr. Mayor. through as smoothly as the one that we have before us today Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item please. The Clerk: 55 PUBLIC SERVICES 26. Motion to award the contract for Bid Item 14-183, Fleming Tennis Center Improvements to the low, responsive bidder, Larry Pittman & Associates of Augusta, Georgia. Their lump sum base bid was $498,752.58 and the recommended add alternate for $61,525.00 for a total contract price of $560,277.58. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Levine. Mr. Levine: Okay, this is a project that’s been in the planning for a little over a year. It’s to build two new courts and renovate five and improve lighting on all seven courts and replace the fencing at MACH Academy’s facility. It’ll be a just a $20,000 dollars contingency left after the project is awarded so we’re running very, very close to the maximum amount that we have. Additionally there’s a $30,000 dollar grant that MACH Academy obtained from the USTA. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I actually, did anybody pull this because I had this on the consent. No, no, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: No. Well, would you want to make a motion to approve? Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 27. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta, Georgia Code, Title 2, Chapter 2, Article 4, Excise Tax for Hotels/Motels, Sections 2-2-27 through Section 2-2-35; Article 5, Local Business License Tax on Depository Financial Institutions, Section 2-2-36 through Section2-2-49; and Article 6, Tax Imposed (Rental Motor Vehicle), Sections 2-2-50 through 2-2-56 as recommended by the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman: Okay, Commissioners, Mayor, this was on the agenda back in August, th August 25 and it was approved by the Public Services Committee. What this is doing it’s not 56 affecting the tax rate at all. The only thing that this is doing is giving a specific and detailed regulation for the collection and record keeping for the hotel/motel excise tax and car rental tax. And the wording is coming directly from the Mixed Drink Excise Tax and Wholesale Alcohol Excise Tax. So we just find that it’s necessary to put it in this ordinance for the administration of the code. Mr. Fennoy: Motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 29. Discuss the appointment of the city administrator. (Requested by Commissioner Ben Hasan) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan : Mr. Mayor and my Commissioner members, I just want to say for the record as we, as I ran my campaign about building a model community through trust as I attended the meetings from 2006 up until I became an official candidate myself up to 2014 one of the things that most notably said to me and most one of the things that was most notably witnessed was the fact that for many times that we invested in studies to try to determine where was going to go for the future it always concerned me that many times those things end up on the shelf. And as a result of that we went out and spent anywhere from $15 to 25 to 35,000 dollars to a headhunter firm to bring back three candidates. And at the end of the day we’ve only, one of those candidates have been put forth by the Mayor, that was Mr. Rodriquez. So we have two other candidates and I would encourage us to continue that process to go ahead and continue the rd process. I do have the minutes from the meeting that we had on the 23 and I think those meetings, that meeting reflects pretty much that we said we would discontinue the recruiting process and would not appoint an Administrator at this time. So with that being said, Mr. Mayor rd and honorable Commissioners, on July 23 the commission voted to discontinue the recruiting I’d like to make a motion that the Commission process for the Administrator’s position. resume the recruiting process immediately and I place in nomination Ms. Janice Jackson a candidate from the Mayor’s list of recommendations a qualified candidate for the position st of Augusta Richmond County Administrator effective January 1. And also at the same time put together especially with the two Super Districts Commissioners allow them to choose someone else to work with them to negotiate with Ms. Allen for a contract. 57 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Jackson? Mr. Hasan: Was that her name? I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: You said Ms. Allen. Mr. Hasan: I’m sorry, Ms. Jackson. I’m sorry, excuse me. Mr. Mayor: Okay --- Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: --- we have a motion. Is there a second on that? Mr. Williams: I second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay, then you seconded, Commissioner. Okay Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Williams: I would like to just the maker of the motion to add to that that the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem along with the two Super District Commissioners sit in negotiations to come up with a contract and a salary for the new person. Mr. Mayor: Is the maker of the motion willing to --- Mr. Hasan: Yes, I do. You can add that to that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a substitute motion that whatever action that we’re considering today that it be held in abeyance for the next 30 days until this governing body can have an opportunity to sit down and look at the pros and cons relative to this particular motion. I think what we’re doing is we are half-cocked. We haven’t really had deliberation and so forth and I would like to see my colleague who made the motion have a little more time on the Commission to really fully understand what it is that we need. So my recommendation would be we hold this thing in abeyance for the next 30 days to see if it’s at all possible for us to get on the same accord because we don’t want to make a move today that’s going to be fragmented. And I’m afraid if we do make the move its most certainly going to be fragmented. Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and could you repeat your motion that we hold, I just want to be very clear. I think I understand what you’re saying but to hold the issue of preceding forward with the process of recruiting an Administrator for 30 days. 58 Mr. Lockett: For 30 days and that will give us an opportunity to get together and have further discussion which we haven’t had hardly any of already to see if we’re all on the same accord because it’s so extremely important. If we’re going to bring somebody in we need to have unanimous support. We are a (inaudible) as it is and by the same token that would give us opportune time to discuss with the Interim Administrator to see what her interests are. To see whether or not she’s interested in applying for the position or she’s not interested in the position. But I think it would be an insult not only to the Interim Administrator but to the department directors and the 2,000 plus employees we have if we do this. Because we have --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Lockett: --- thank you. We have lots of people that work for this government can make a lots more money and have more benefits in the private sector but they chose to work in the public sector. And one of those things that keep them around is the fact that there’s a possibility of upward mobility. Now I could see that if our Interim Administrator wasn’t doing an outstanding job, which I know she is, well then I could go along with his. But under these circumstances there’s no justification for us to do this now. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. William: Mr. Mayor, I was (inaudible) Mr. Mayor: (inaudible) then I’ll come back down this way. Mr. Guilfoyle: You know Mr. Lockett is talking to where discussion does have to be done with this because this body acted 7-1 two and a half months ago to wait until we got the new Commissioners, the newly elect Mayor to come on board so they could have to be part of the process. Ya’ll are fixing to hire an Administrator but there’s no discussion on how much pay conditions as far as her benefits package, her expectation of service, her requirements to carry on that job and implement. And Mr. Hasan myself talked about this about an evaluation process. We haven’t done any of these so we’re actually putting the cart in front of the wagon. Thirty days ain’t going to break, make or break us but it does give us time as a body to work as a unit to where we actually spend time and get the process done correctly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Fennoy, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Williams: Thank you, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I don’t know where these Commissioners have been, the need to come out whatever hole they’ve been in but we’ve been st discussing this thing for over a year now. In fact we started a year ago. December 31 was Mr. Russell’s last day I believe and we started this process shortly after that. Now if you ain’t had time to talk that means you ain’t took time to talk. I mean you didn’t want to talk about it. Now I had dialogue with everybody on this board about what we should do. Now we’re at a critical point. We done spent almost $20/25,000 dollars of the taxpayers’ money to go out for a search and we’ve got a qualified person. We had the Mayor who looked at all the applicants, brought us 59 back the three top finalists he said and one person eliminated himself because he didn’t have all the requirements. But we had two the first one didn’t make it and here we are now. Now I don’t know what kind of games we’re playing but the ship is running a loose, there’s nobody directing the ship. I appreciate Ms. Allen sitting in her seat as the Interim. She said she didn’t want the job; she wanted to go back to IT where she had been all the time. We agreed, we want a professional person to come in, someone who had expertise who had the knowledge and the wisdom to do this. We said we didn’t want to babysit or train anybody all over again. Now we sit here and talking like we don’t what’s going on. You’re not lying to me, you’re lying to yourself. I’ve really got some problems with that. When we sit up here on the board and, anybody that’s lying if the shoe fits put it on. Mr. Mayor: And let’s tone it down a little bit. Mr. Williams: I didn’t call no names, I didn’t call no names. I said if that’s the way you feel, then that, you’re in that category. Now if you want me to point some fingers I can do that do. But, Mr. Mayor, it’s a shame how we have spent this money for a headhunter, come back with the people that was said was qualified and then now we want to act like we don’t know what we’re doing. Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: No, sir, Mr. Mayor I’m finished with that. Thank you very much. Other people got some say as well. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy then Ms. Davis. Commissioner Fennoy has the floor. Ya’ll, gentlemen. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to call for a roll call vote please. Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, we haven’t gotten to the point where we’ve called for the vote yet. Mr. Fennoy: Well, when we get to that point. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that’s why we hold a lot of these discussions in Legal when we talk about personnel matters because of what’s going on up here. I’m not against anything that ya’ll all said. They all make sense to me. We sent through the process, I appreciate Mr. Hasan trying to move this forward. Ms. Allen, I appreciate all that you’ve done and I don’t like the situation right now, I’m not comfortable with it, I’ll just be honest. Has, I don’t, Mr. Andrew MacKenzie, what is the typical process here? Have we talked to the candidate? Have we fulfilled all the requirements we would need to do to move forward in hiring someone? What, where are we with this? I mean, I agree, I’m you know Mr. Commissioner Williams I might need a shoe to where but I just don’t, I wish we had done this in personnel and gone through a different process. Mr. MacKenzie. 60 Mr. MacKenzie: Well, sure, you did mention this is a personnel matter. Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: It is something that you can certainly discuss in personnel. Maybe that’s part of what can take place within the next 30 days if this motion passes. Procedurally as Commissioner Hasan has pointed out the Commission has made a decision but it left the door open to reconsider or resume the consideration process at some point in the future. And the Commission still has the purview to do that. Obviously based on the past precedent typically the process is, you know, names are nominated. Usually the process is done in a closed legal meeting to make the decision to negotiate and designate someone to do the negotiation. And that’s brought back when you have kind of a meeting of the minds between the candidate as well as the Commission on the terms of employment. Then that’s usually brought out in a legal meeting and approved by the Commission body which still can be done. It sounds like you’re at the stage where you haven’t gotten to the place where you are ready to do that and so the motion you have on the floor would be to give you 30 days to do that. However these discussions can be made in a legal meeting because they do relate to personnel. Ms. Davis: Can I follow up real quick? Mr. Mayor: (inaudible). Ms. Davis: Has anybody talked to the candidate as far as our Human Resources or is that not necessary, Mr. MacKenzie? Mr. Mayor: That would be, that’s procedure to me but I’m not aware of anybody from within the city government having any discussions. Mr. MacKenzie: If I could speak to that. I think based on the last motion that the Commission approved there would be no need for anybody to have any future communications at this point with any candidates because the process has been stopped. Mr. Mayor: And let me just say that the process as I understand it, Mr. Mackenzie, and correct me if I’m wrong was for the Mayor to present three candidates to cull it down to three candidates to present before the Commission. I could make my recommendation which I did but I stilled culled it down to the three most qualified candidates based on qualifications once again. So I made my recommendation but that did not stop the Commission from having the opportunity to approve either one of the other two candidates. Correct? Mr. MacKenzie: That’s exactly correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hasan, the motion is well constructed to where it needs to be. What the attorney said I agree with some of that. We’re at the process now we can move 61 forward then negotiate like we added into that to finalize anything that we can’t come to a resolution or that particular position has been, that vacancy has been filled already or that person is gone already then we have to come back to this body. But we don’t have to stop the process because no one has made any contact or have made any connection with that to find out if they’re still available or not. If they’re not available then it would have to come back to this body. So I don’t see any reason to hold it up for thirty more days. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor: You made a couple points of emphasis that need to be made. One, when we brought up the nomination of Mr. Rodriquez I didn’t hear the same questions that I’m hearing today. I didn’t hear nobody ask what is he going to get paid, has he met this or has he met that, can he be hired, should he be the one name that’s out there that we’re voting on. I didn’t hear any of that at that particular point so I’m not sure why we’re hearing it today. From the very beginning I made myself very clear on this. This entire Commission, the ten of us with the exception of Ben, we put out a check list a criteria that we wanted to see in our new Administrator, all ten of us, we did that, the ten that was here. At the end of the day to make a long story short and I made this statement there was one individual that met the criteria, all of it and that wasn’t the one that was brought forward for the nomination but that’s certainly your right because you could look at whatever factors that you wanted to look at. But in terms of size of city and so forth when we put all of those together there was only one person that met that and that was Ms. Jackson. It’s irrelevant to me whether she’s male, female, white or black or whatever the situation is, these are things that we as a body came together and said this is what we wanted to see. Now or subsequently we did not adhere to that totally and so that choice was denied and so as Mr. Hasan said there’s an opportunity to look at --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you two more. Mr. Mason: --- thank you, Mr. Mayor, there’s an opportunity to look at the other two. For me when I looked at the other two well when I looked at all three like I said from the very beginning the one didn’t qualify no anyways is Steve because he didn’t even have a Masters degree which is what we wanted to see in our Administrator. So that person in my mind based on our criteria that we put together that we wanted to see didn’t need the standards. So I’m not even sure how it got in the three that was “qualified”. So here we are today at a point to where and it doesn’t really matter to me which way it goes but it’s a little disingenuous to me when we say well have we talked about the salary, have we talked, we didn’t talk about that with Rodriquez. We didn’t talk about any of that but had we got the six votes he’d have already been hired or certainly, well would have got started in the negotiation process. So whatever we do today is what we do but I just want to make sure that you know we’ve got to be careful with our actions that we do at points and then we turn around when the time comes to look at that again we don’t do. Now I’ve had discussions with our Interim Administrator and to my knowledge unless she tells me something different today I was under the impression that she weren’t interested in this position. And I’d like to ask that question so that we can get it on the record are you interested in becoming the City Administrator for the city of Augusta on a permanent full time basis considering the fact that you did not apply for the position when it was put out. 62 Mr. Mayor: I will tell you, Commissioner Mason, and she reserves the right to answer but I don’t know that this is the best forum to put Ms. Allen on the spot. Mr. Mason: Of course it is it’s a legitimate question for decision makers that, I mean because so that I can take that into, I mean how do I take something into consideration if you’re going to feed me half of the information? Mr. Mayor: I’m not saying that it’s not a legitimate question, but I don’t think this is the appropriate forum for it it doesn’t seem like to me but I’ll allow her to --- Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, can I make a --- Mr. Mayor: --- Commissioner Mason still has --- Mr. Lockett: --- I want to make a friendly recommendation because --- Mr. Mayor: --- but he still, Mr. Mason still has the floor for fourteen more seconds. Mr. Mason: Well, I’m just looking for an answer that, you know I mean. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen, you can choose to or not choose to. Ms. Allen: If I could respond. You know, I heard Commissioner Williams’ comments and I appreciate Commissioner Davis. I think you need to understand too, I know Commissioner Williams made a comment that no one’s running the ship. Let me assure you there is somebody running the ship. There was somebody running the ship when we had that major ice storm, there was somebody running the ship when we’ve been dealing with these budget issues. There’s been st someone running the ship since December 31 or before that. I appreciate the support that I’ve received from some of the Commissioners but I’d be derelict if I didn’t respond to some of the comments and some of the things that I’ve been hearing. I have been committed to this city for 21 years. I’ve worked duel jobs for 8-9 years and I can assure you that I have been truly committed to this organization to moving Augusta forward. So it disappoints me that we have to have these types of discussions and I’ll be truthfully honest. Maybe this wasn’t the place to have it but if we wanted to get out here on the floor and discuss it I have no problem in doing such. I want to continue to move Augusta forward. I think I’ve done that. I built relationships with the departments. I’ve built relationships with the citizens. You know so to get in here and discuss whether or not the ship was being, you know, someone was manning the ship, somebody’s been working on things you’re not going to change anything in eight months that has been set in stone for ten years. So if anybody expected that change I’m sorry for that because there’s a lot of things that need to be changed and need to be modified there’s been working on this team has been working on. So I guess the ultimate thing for us as far as the team we’re willing to do what this Commission decides and chooses for us to do. If this Commission wants to go in that direction, that’s this Commission’s decision and we will continue to work with that. Mr. Mayor: Okay and let me just make one quick comment as well. Just for the record there were no candidates, my recommendation was never presented on the floor there was not a 63 single candidate that was presented or voted on on the floor. The Commission made the decision through a 7-1 vote to discontinue the process. So there was no candidate voted on. I just did want to clarify that. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know --- Mr. Mayor: This is a one minute. I had forgotten I’d gotten you twice. One minute. Mr. Lockett: --- all right. I mean it’s really a shame that we would bring up something like this. One of the reasons why I asked for the 30 days was to give us an opportunity to decide whether or not Ms. Allen who really should not have to ask for the position we should’ve gone to her based on her performance since December of last year. But we chose not to. Had we been the professionals that we’re supposed to be, we would take the 30 days. We would find out whether or not Ms. Allen wanted the position. If the votes were not there for Ms. Allen to get the position, we could’ve given Ms. Allen an opportunity to face the media and say I’m not interested in it. Now can you imagine the ridicule that she’s going to get from this community? I hope we get it instead of her because she has done an outstanding job and there’s nobody sitting up here can say she hasn’t. Mr. Mayor: The one --- Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: --- minute’s up. And I just want to say you know I’m down here every day working with Ms. Allen and Steve and they are, you know, there’s no doubt in my mind of their commitment to this city and doing everything they can. And you know through the ice storm through everything they’ve been there through thick and thin. So I did just want to say thank you and offer words of support. Okay, we have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly seconded for clarity, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: The substitute motion was to hold in abeyance for the next 30 days relative to the appointment of the Administrator. Mr. Lockett: Roll call please. The Clerk: Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: No. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am. 64 The Clerk: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: No. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: No. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: No. The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith. Mr. Smith: No. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: No. Motion Fails 3-6. The Clerk: The original motion Mr. Hasan and Mr. Williams was to resume the recruitment process for the Administrator and to appoint Janice Jackson effective 1 January 2015 and authorize the two Super District commissioners, the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem to negotiate a contract, salary and benefit package for Commission approval. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, one thing I’d like to say it’s hire and not appoint. I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Did we post that last vote? The Clerk: It was roll call. Mr. Hasan: It was roll call, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. And this one has requested to be --- Mr. Hasan: Roll call as well and it’s to hire. The Clerk: Okay. Ms. Davis. 65 Ms. Davis: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes. Ms. Davis and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Motion Passes 7-2. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: One point of personal privilege. Mr. Guilfoyle: Can we do this vote over? If we’re going to hire an Administrator, it needs to be unanimous. 66 Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’d like, can we get a motion to ratify this vote? Mr. Hasan: I make that motion we ratify the vote, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Williams votes No. Motion Passes 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Davis, I’ll get you for one minute. Ms. Davis: Ms. Allen, I just wanted to address you. I appreciate your standing in here and facing this. And I again I wish from now on we would handle these things in Personnel. I know it’s tough but I appreciate all that you’ve done for our city. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 30. Update from staff regarding James Henry settlement of claims. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. : Mr. Mayor that’s been moved to our legal Mr. Williams meeting on Monday. I talked to the attorney. He said that they’re going to address it in legal so --- Mr. Mayor: Are you putting that in the form of a motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. 67 The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 31. Discuss the downtown parking meter proposal. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to see how can move forward with this. You know we did this study. I see Margaret Woodard is here from the DDA. We had discussed this before. Steve Cassell’s here as well. We’ve got a, there’s a plan or company that will come in I think to set this up for us. There won’t be any cost to the city. Steve, can you enlighten us on it so what that is and what we need to do to keep this process moving forward? Mr. Cassell: Yeah, I mean I think it’s important for the commissioners who weren’t present back in 2010 when this first came forward you know one of the things when the DDA spearheaded the study to look into parking meters. All right, one of the things that came up during that is the weakness of our actual parking ordinance downtown. And so as part of that, they had proposed a revised ordinance that would provide an enforcement mechanism. I think when the city consolidated it dissolved the city traffic court which was the appeal mechanism for what we say is our parking ticket. So one of the things that didn’t make it through in 2010 was the revision of the parking ordinance. I know you want a path forward, I’m getting there. I think first what we ought to need to do is probably do a workshop and let’s revisit so that the current commission can kind of get an update of where that weaknesses of the parking ordinance, what we could propose, because anything would have to start with a revised ordinance. And then if we wanted to take the ordinance and move on to a parking meter system which we discussed both with DDA and I think the previous Bill Shanahan had started the work on it when he left. But I think that just for the benefit of the commissioners on board right now it would probably be best to hold a workshop or push it on to committee and we can discuss it further. Ms. Woodard can talk about what they found back in 2008, 2009, 2010 and we can both go over the weaknesses of the existing ordinance and the strengths of the new ordinance to move forward. And if we want to go to parking meters from there we can go but the first step would I believe go to revising the ordinance. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you still have the floor. Mr. WilliamsIf I can forward this to committee along with : Thank you, Mr. Mayor. getting with the attorney to make sure that we work some things out with the ordinance that we can get this process to continue to move. We’ve got a lot of potential growth in downtown. I know we’ve got a lot of businesses that’s downtown that want to keep the parking fluctuation and moving around so it won’t be locked down all day. But I think we’ve got to do something quick that we had not done before. And if we can move this on to committee I would really appreciate it. form of a motion? Mr. Mayor: And you’re putting that in the 68 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Excuse me, Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: And I could appreciate the feedback and participation we get from Ms. Woodard and the DDA but there’s another downtown organization that I believe that needs to be involved with the discussion and the process also. The last time the parking meters issue came up, some merchants downtown was opposed to it and some merchants were in favor of it. But I think if we’re going to have a discussion then we need to have I won’t say everybody involved but there’s another organization and other downtown merchants organization need to bring it to the table also. Mr. Cassell: Right and if I could add to what you said. The goal of this is not to ask DDA to do this again. I think at this point they did a lot of work back in 2010. I think the goal of this would be to let the city take the reins of its own ordinance and move it forward with the help of and ask DDA when we get to the point when we’re dealing with the enforcement and the purchasing of the parking meters if we go that route. But I think the goal here is the city, it’s the city’s ordinance we need to move forward and drive the changing of at least the ordinance because this will be something that our citizens can live with. And if there’s another organization or an organization that would like to participate we’d more than welcome them. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Davis: Can you read the motion, Mr. Mayor? The Clerk: Refer it back to committee. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 32. Motion to approve Patrol Agreement with the Housing Authority. Mr. Lockett: Move to approve. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. Fennoy: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 69 Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What exactly are we asked to approve here I mean per se. I mean is it I understand that this the Housing. Is it any all housing projects or is it just? Mr. Mayor: Do we have somebody to speak to this? Yes, sir. That never seems to work for me. Mr. Oldfield: I’m Buddy Oldfield. I’m the Director of Resident Services for the Augusta Housing Authority. In that capacity I’m also the liaison for the Sheriff’s Department. Been doing that about 20 years even when it was an old police department back in the old days. This contract is something we’ve been doing for at least that long. It was a bigger amount when we had Cherry Tree and when we had Gilbert Manor, when we had Underwood and what we are seeking to do since we now removed Cherry Tree and removed Underwood from the picture that we’re going to fewer deputies and paying less money for them. That’s it in a nutshell. Mr. Johnson: Okay, so you’re just reducing the size --- Mr. Oldfield: Yes. Mr. Johnson: --- of the geographic area and less officers. Mr. Oldfield: Less projects if you will to cover so less officers. Mr. Johnson: Okay, all right (inaudible) thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to approve and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Fennoy: Can I ask a question after I make my vote? Mr. Mayor: Sure. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: I know the vote has been taken but because we have reduced the number of deputies that we use because of the Cherry, Underwood and Gilbert Manor, do you feel that there is a need to increase the presence the Sheriff’s presence in the existing Housing Authority’s property? Mr. Oldfield: I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. What, are you asking if there’s more need to have deputies in there now than there was before? Mr. Fennoy: Well, I mean if we, if we had say three I mean a deputy assigned to each housing project because of, is there a need now even though some of the projects have closed is there a need to have two deputies at some of the projects? Mr. Oldfield: Well, let me make sure the Commission understands this. This contract is above and beyond the regular level of services that is to be provided by the Sheriff’s Department 70 on a regular basis just like my neighborhood or your neighborhood or anyone else’s. These are additional deputies. And generally the way that they work they’re divided into two squads so I imagine there will be two squads of four persons each and they will rotate within those. Now in the old days Cherry Tree drew more attention, if you will, rather than say Peabody because we didn’t have a lot of problems at Peabody but they were more in Cherry Tree. So now probably the place that would draw the most attention would probably be Dogwood Terrace but that remains to be seen really. Does that answer your question or am I getting close? Mr. Fennoy: No, but I understand what you’re saying. Mr. Oldfield: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, if you could publish the vote then I’ll give Commissioner Williams a minute of personal privilege. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. What I want to bring to light is that those areas that we are deleting like Cherry Tree and other entities like that people are moving out of the neighborhoods and the Housing Authority still has jurisdiction over some of those Section 8 type cases. And the neighborhood is something more now than the project itself. So I need to know what is the Housing Authority thoughts on those people they’re placing out into different areas because the people leaving one side of town I say or one area going into another area affecting the whole area where at one time it was concentrated in that particular location. So is there any consideration being given to those people who are renting homes out just to get the income and not managing, I’ll not say not managing --- Mr. Mayor: Your minute’s up, Commissioner. Mr. Williams: I need an answer then. I can’t talk no more but he can. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Oldfield: That answer’s complicated so let me tell you the best that I know how to tell you. Every time we have a problem with the Section 8 client we fully investigate that client. And if they are not completely, completely complying to the rules that we have then we will terminate their assistance. And then it’s up to the landlord to terminate them at that point after that so we have no authority to terminate their actual existence in the house. But we will terminate their assistance. Now very likely if the landlord’s not getting the money, they’re not going to have that person there most likely. Secondly, we’ve done some studies and I know in Harrisburg back several years ago there was some complaints about that. And we would get the number of complaints there and there might be twelve of those complaints and one would be a Section 8 client. So it’s not always a Section 8 person. I know that it is sometimes and I, you know, can’t sit here and deny that it would not be but that’s the procedure that we do. 71 Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, on to the next --- Mr. Oldfield: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: --- agenda item The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 33. Discuss the policing and the detention authorities of Paine College. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the attorney has spoke with me about the process that he has laid out where Paine College and I don’t think anyone here is still with Paine. Where they can coincide with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department along with MCG and have a conversation and some dialogue to make sure that these guys are working together in versus working against each other. I know Paine is a private entity but in lieu of what happened with the shooting over there and the growth of that school we want to make sure that those officers who are certified have those rights and those authorities to do the things that a law officer should have and not just be brushed off. And I could get into a long debate but I’m going to see how this communication’s going to come back and then we’ll have to bring it back to Public Safety. Mr. Mayor: Great. Can I get a motion to receive this as information? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: I’ll make the motion. Mr. Fennoy: I think that we need to include Richmond County Board of Education and Public Safety in the discussion also. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to receive this as information? Mr. Johnson: I made the motion but I need a second. Mr. Williams: Second, second, second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second, second, second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 9-0. 72 Mr. Mayor: And I would ask as we go forward just in the interest of time Commissioners would take a quick look and see if there was anything we could move back to committee or anything we could go ahead and approve. I don’t know if the appointments if ya’ll want to go ahead and approve agenda item number 46. Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved. Mr. Williams: I’ll send number 43 back, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: Forty-three back to committee? Mr. Williams: Right. APPOINTMENTS 46. Consider the recommendations of the Richmond County Board of Health to appoint as follows: Willie Joseph Hillson, M.D. to the unexpired term of Elijah Lightfoot, Jr. M.D. ending December 31, 2015 and Bruce Rigs, D.B.D. to a four-year term formerly held by Dr. F. Marion Durst, III. Mr. Mayor: Okay, first off let’s vote on 46. We have a motion to approve agenda item 46 by Commissioner Guilfoyle. Do we have a second on that? Mr. Johnson: I second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Williams, you made a motion to move agenda item number --- The Clerk: Forty-three. FINANCE 43. Discuss the following ARC contractual requirement relative to organizations who receive SPLOST funding “Organization shall comply with the purchasing policies of Augusta-Richmond County regarding the advertising for bids, the securing of bids and payment, performance bonds and contracting. Payments to any sub-contractor employed by the Organization shall be made directly by the Organization, subject to Augusta’s audit and approval. If the total project costs exceed the amount funded by Augusta and the Matching Funds, the Organization shall provide proof of other funding sources. Payments by the Organization to sub-contractors shall be made only upon presentation of verified invoices.” (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) 73 Mr. Williams: I move 43 back to committee and I’ll take 44 and send it to the next full Commission, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. ENGINEERING SERVICES 44. Motion to approve the termination of the contract between Heery International and Augusta, Georgia. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Guilfoyle votes No. Motion Passes 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I don’t know. Under item number 41, this Ms. Weston. The Clerk: Yes, sir, she called the office. She’s currently residing in Columbia South Carolina,I believe, and she no longer lives here but apparently the taxes were incorrectly assessedand I think Mr. Ross, are you here to address this? Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s call agenda item number 41. FINANCE 41. Consider a request from Keiauntae Weston regarding a refund in property taxes due to the home being assessed incorrectly from years 2007 through 2011. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross: Mayor, Commissioners, how may I assist you? Mr. Lockett: You have thirty seconds. Mr. Ross: Statutory law requires that refunds considerations are limited to three years. This matter was brought to my attention once placed on your agenda the correction to the square footage was done in tax year 2012 with a slight reduction in valuation in the neighborhood of 213 making those moot issues. Therefore the eligibility on the law would grant the refund for tax year eleven only all other years being outside the three year period. And the impact of that decision if so be it, commission, is $121.64. Mr. Lockett: Move to approve. 74 Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded just to, I’m coming your way, Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Guilfoyle: The, if the maker of that motion would make the total amount $121.64. Mr. Lockett: I said that, move to approve in the amount of $121.61. Mr. Guilfoyle: Sixty-four. Mr. Lockett: Sixty-four --- Mr. Ross: Sixty-four, sir. Mr. Lockett: Sixty-four cents. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: I understand, now what were you saying about the tree years? Mr. Ross: Under Code Section 48-5 there’s a whole set of issues that address refund conditions and limits that petition to three years, sir, because the ’14 taxes are actually not due at the latest date we don’t count that year so we give them the benefit of ’13, ’12 and ’11 at this period. Albeit ’13 and ’12 in this case are a moot issue that was resolved of this matter. The person wanted you to go back obviously to ’07. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and I guess my --- Mr. Ross: Technically the house was not there in ’07. It came on the tax rolls in ’08. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. If a property owner underpaid their taxes, can we go back and you -- Mr. Ross: You have the right by law to go back seven years. The practice has always been limited to equalize at three. Primarily there’s never been action to go back in the arrears once we correct something we correct it from that year and move forward. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, all right that’s what I wanted to know. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 75 Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: Item 40 --- Mr. Lockett: No, you’re at 39. The Clerk: Thirty-nine? Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Actually 38, isn’t it? The Clerk: FINANCE 38. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code to create Title Two Chapter Two Article Seven Sections 2-2-57 through 2-2-66 relating to the provision of a local excise tax on energy used in manufacturing; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances and parts of Code Sections and ordinances in conflict therewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is actually just the next step in the process for the energy excise tax that we originally presented to you. The final vote does not th take place until October the 7 so this is just to get us where we need to go to continue the process. Mr. Fennoy: Motion to approve. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Davis and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 6-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item please. The Clerk: FINANCE 39. Motion to approve request to compel the Finance Director to provide Governing Body information relative to the disposition of interest monies earned on SPLOST proceeds. An 76 Augusta Georgia SPLOST Fund Balances Report as of 12-31-2013 reflects the following: SPLOST I interest earnings $7,364,418; SPLOST II interest earnings $12,954.082; SPLOST III interest earnings $20,514,527; SPLOST IV interest earnings $18,696.003; SPLOST V interest earnings $11,948.048; SPLOST VI interest earnings $381,303. In addition, The Finance Director will provide documentation that will reflect the authorized usage of such funds. Any other relevant information is solicited. (Requested by Commissioner Lockett) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like if I could to have the Finance Director come up. And she don’t have to give me a lengthy spiel. She can break it down and give me a three minute version. It would be fine with me. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Augusta Richmond County complies with the regulations as laid out governing the interest earned for SPLOST proceeds by tracking those at the fund level. You’ve previously have been given reports that shows total interest earned for the various phases. The Finance staff has combed back through the individual reports and tracked them back to 1988, the first beginning of SPLOST and furnished that information. We’re in full compliance with all the laws and regulations regarding tracking SPLOST interests which is done at the fund level. And I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Mr. Lockett: If I may, Mr. Chair. Ms. Williams, I’m not questioning whether or not we’re in compliance but what I am is trying to solicit information so that this governing body will know what money we have and how it’s being used. What I would like to know is the money is probably and which I agree with you is accounted for but what is the money used for. Who has the authority to use it? If $30 million dollars is allocated in SPLOST funds to build building ‘A’ but it takes three years to build that building and the money’s just sitting there drawing interest does that interest earn? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Does that go to the $30 million or does it go, can we use it for something else? Ms. Williams: It rolls into the fund balance which is comprised of both your collections and your interest earned, that is your revenue section less your expenditures equals your fund balance. That happens year after year after year. And when, when projects are approved under SPLOST as you well know those are forecast out years and years and years in advance. So there are adjustments that have to be made to various projects that require additional monies. Each one of those actions is approved by this governing body to delegate additional funds which could be either from additional revenue that was collected if SPLOST collections are coming in higher or from interest earned. Those are not tracked separately they are considered a part of fund balance. So when an expenditure adjustment or a project budget adjustment is brought to this 77 governing body it is typically referred to as coming from fund balance or recaptured funds. Those are funds that are rolled over so the interest earned is not allocated to each individual project. The SPLOST regulations do not require that; they require that it be tracked at the fund level which is what it’s done here. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair, if I may. Recaptured funds, how do we know when recaptured funds are sitting there and there are projects that we definitely need that recaptured funds could be used for but we are not aware of it? How is the governing body notified that we have $3 million dollars of recaptured funds that’s just sitting here? Because it’s kind of ironic a couple of months ago I missed the commission meeting, I was out of town and I watched it on my IPAD. And when they came up and said they have a million dollars for signage from recaptured funds I said to myself, gee, where’d that come from? And this is what I think the governing body needs to know in order for us to render good decisions. You know and not in a financial langulese or whatever you want to call it. I would like for you all to break it out where the average high school graduate can understand it. That’s what I’m looking for. Ms. Williams: Can I put this information on the overhead? It may or may not be helpful or I can furnish it to you later. It depends on how long --- Mr. Lockett: For the sake of time, Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry, you could furnish it to me. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, that would be great. Ms. Williams: I will certainly do that. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Ms. Williams. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Williams, you have some figures there that’s in the book. I’m sure you have the figures as well. Does these figures represent the interest and is the interest kept in a separate account? I know you gave us a lot of moving parts there and I’ll be honest with you I couldn’t track it. But I’m wondering, is the interest kept in a separate account and does these numbers here represent anything to you in terms of interest from a SPLOST I up until SPLOST VI? Ms. Williams: The interest earned are the numbers that are furnished on this sheet that we will be providing to you and has been previously provided in some earlier conversations related to this matter. The interest is tracked. It is in each individual phase --- Mr. Hasan: In its own account. Ms. Williams: --- and that is considered an account for general ledger purposes by keeping it in the phase which is as I said in compliance with the A.C.C.G Manual. And there is also an opinion back in 2001 from the Attorney General’s office regarding how those funds could be tracked and I’ll be happy to forward that as a part of the correspondence. 78 Mr. Hasan: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to receive this as information? Mr. Fennoy: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Guilfoyle out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next and what I believe is the final agenda item. The Clerk: FINANCE 40. Motion to approve the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the cities of Blythe and Hephzibah for the allocation and distribution of proceed from the energy excise tax. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission this is just another part of the process. And we already had the meeting with Blythe and Hephzibah and they have a timeline to give us their actual response back. And this is part of the process of the intergovernmental agreement being drafted. Mr. Lockett: Move to approve. Mr. Hasan: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Allen, our conversation earlier today we do realize there’s a discrepancy in terms of whether we can do 1% or 2% if I’m not mistaken. How will we get that resolved? Ms. Allen: Everything that we’ve been told with A.C.C.G. it has been 2%. Mr. Hasan: Okay. All right, thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 79 Ms. Davis notes No. Mr. Guilfoyle out. Motion Passes 7-1. Mr. Mayor: Okay, with no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on September 16, 2014. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 80 81