Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS July 20, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m, Tuesday, July 20, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Ms. Little, Acting County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SIMS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. CLERK: Members of the Commission, at the request of the Mayor we will take the alcohol license regarding Brown Road first because of the delegation present, and that's Item 33. Item 33: New Application A.N. 99-45: Consider a request by Gary Richardson for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Lee & Sons Convenience Store located at 3995 Old Waynesboro Road Highway. MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here today? MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, I represent the petitioner. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. And, let's see, do we have any objectors here today? If we can get a show of hands, please. (20 OBJECTORS PRESENT) MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have our representative from the Sheriff's Department here? License & Inspection? All right. Why don't we hear from our staff first, Mr. Williams, then we'll hear from the petitioner. MR. HARRIS: Mr. Mayor, we approved this, and we are recommending approval, in the Public Services Committee. It met all the qualifications, and I would like to [inaudible]. There were no problems. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Williams, on behalf of the petitioner? MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Bill Williams and I'm an attorney here in town, and I represent Mr. Richardson. I Page 2 don't know what else I can say other than the location, and he meets all of the local and state requirements, and otherwise this application ought to be approved. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Is there a spokesman for the objectors? Yes, ma'am, if you'll come and identify yourself and state your address. MS. MILLER: Carol Miller, 4001 Goshen Lake Drive North. Actually, there's myself on one issue and Mr. Badke, who spoke at the other meeting, if you have time for that, to speak on another facet of the same issue. Good afternoon. I'm here representing many people of our neighborhood. Last time at a meeting we had approximately 40 people, and I didn't turn around and count, but I know there is over 20 some odd here today. We also have on the petitions you have in front of you over 500 people in our neighborhood that have signed this petition in opposition to the issuing of a new alcohol and beer license at the proposed site. Just to briefly give you a little bit of history, over 30 years ago this small parcel of land was zoned for commercial purposes, but the neighborhood decided that the convenience store would go on Goshen Road, and that's how the development went. In actuality, this fact that it was licensed commercially was forgotten. When the estate settled and the property came up for sale approximately last summer, it was purchased. And at that time the community and, in essence, even Mr. Patty's office became aware that it had been zoned commercially and it had never gone back. It was stated by Mr. Patty in this room that were they asked today, it would not fit the master plan because this is a residential area. So what we really have here historically is something that was done a long time ago and literally forgotten until the property came up for sale again. The owner of the property bought it to establish a business. We understand that, and we all understand profit. Actually keeping our neighborhood the way we want it without another beer and alcohol license, protecting our children, that's all part of an investment for our property and profit, so we do understand that. And also please let me state that although we appreciate the owner's desire to make a profit from this land, it is not our responsibility to sit quietly by when we feel it's wrong. And as you can see, over 500 people have signed this. They do not wish for another license to be here. Countless hours have been spent by many people and dedicated to defeating this issue. If you will notice, we handed out some maps [inaudible] so you'll have a visual aid here. What we have here is an outline showing--the orange ones show the existing places that sell alcohol--I mean beer and wine and two of which sell alcohol. So we have these eight places here. We have two new proposed sites: one is the Smile station on Tobacco Road and Page 3 the other is the site in question today. What we'd like you to be aware of or just bring to your attention is that all the existing sites and the proposed site on Tobacco Road are all within commercial zoning. The only one that is not is the site here on the corner of Old Waynesboro and McDade Road. And as you can see, that is within 0.2 miles of Goshen Elementary School and approximately 0.9 miles of the new Crosscreek High School. Again, for this reason alone, although it met the Sheriff's requirements, it does not meet our community's requirements. Another factor is, going back to some recent articles in the Chronicle about 11 businesses that were paying fines because they were selling to underage. We're not in any way insinuating that this store, if it were given the license-- MAYOR YOUNG: I'm going to cut you off here because there is no issue of this petitioner selling anything to anyone under age. MS. MILLER: No, I just said it happens. MAYOR YOUNG: It's pure speculation, so-- MS. MILLER: Right. I'm just saying, because of this article, it happens. I agree with you and I meant to say that. Excuse me. In closing, we would just like to say that basically there's only one person that will profit if this license is given, and that is the owner of the property. It is not the neighborhood children that will profit, nor is it the 500 people who do not wish it to be there. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. And we had one other objector who wanted to speak. If you would come up, please, and identify yourself and give us your address. MR. BADKE: My name is Ken Badke. I have a business in Goshen, my wife has a business in Goshen, I have been associated with that particular area since it was developed in 1970. I have two--first, we do not know what--other than we have a man who has applied for a liquor license. Previous to that he applied for a license for another building, which was objected to. He has applied for a liquor license, we don't know what kind of a building he's going to build. He has not submitted to Planning and Zoning any site development plan. Secondly, we are in a position, I don't think any of the Commissioners really appreciate it, but we're in a position at that particular intersection where we have a new high school that's going in. That new high school is going to create a traffic area like you wouldn't believe. Actually what we're going to be doing is turning traffic through Goshen to Highway 56. That particular area is going to have to have--the property where the rights-of-way are, Page 4 we're going to have to have that expanded for other lanes. In doing that, we're going to run into more problems. I just don't believe that Richmond County Planning and Zoning understands that. I have no way of knowing that. Because if they're going to try to approve a commercial property on that corner, it's not feasible. Definitely not feasible. You're in a floodplain, you have no idea what you're going to do. I have an acreage in that same area, and we have other people within this group that have other acreages in that area. They can't build on it. I can't build on the property that I have. So why should we put a piece of commercial property on a pointed corner that's going to have to be--you just can't do that if you're going to follow a traffic pattern in that area. And it's coming. There isn't any question about it, it's coming. You're starting to widen Waynesboro Road now in certain areas right there at the school. You're going to have to bring that all the way down to Brown Road. It's going to have to come, so why would you put a piece of commercial building in the way of a traffic area. Thank you. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you very much. Mr. Williams, is there anything you would like to add? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. First I'd like to clear up a point. This is not an application for liquor, it's for beer and wine. The property is already zoned, and it's zoned appropriately. That's not an issue before you. It's a question of what type of building, and any engineering plans that would be submitted would obviously have to be approved. That's not an issue before you. If the folks in Goshen are upset about folks selling beer and wine, then they need to close down the convenience store that's inside of Goshen Plantation that sells beer and wine and they need to close down the clubhouse that serves beer, wine, and liquor and does so on Sunday. So I think that their arguments are a bit specious when it comes to worrying about folks being able to get beer, wine, and liquor there at Goshen. I would point out to you also that the petition that was submitted to you is skewed at least in that there are duplicate signatures on it. Some folks that have signed it do not reside in Richmond County but have Waynesboro, Georgia, addresses. And I would suggest to you that you have heard no legal reason to turn this matter down. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Commissioners? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to speak to this, and then I'll make a motion. Mr. Mayor, this is a predominantly residential area. We just recently went through the process, in keeping with our master plan, of making this section of Richmond County residential. We changed it from agricultural to a residential area. And the immediate area here at McDade Page 5 Road and Goshen Road where this site is proposed, there might be four or ten acres, I'm not sure how much there that's zoned commercial, and that was--that's grandfathered in from what we did last year. But everything else around it is residential. You won't find any commercial anywhere else other than on that one corner, so I think we need to emphasize that this is a residential area. This is where the people come, they raise their families, they tend their gardens, water their lawns, this is where they come to lay their head at night. We need to keep in mind, too, that even though, as the attorney mentioned, the location for this is within the state requirements, we need to remember how low the state require- ments are as far as distance. This place is very close to an elementary school. There's a high school going less than a mile down below it. When that high school opens, every other teenager, 16/17 years old, is going to have a car. You're going to have some traffic congestion right there at that corner. And particularly it would be an issue, I think, involving the teenagers that might possibly hang out at this place that's serving alcohol, and I think we need to take that in consideration. I don't think it's compatible with the neighborhood due to the schools, due to it being a residential area. I'd like to speak, too, about the traffic that's on this road. I've had several residents--many residents along this Old Waynesboro Road that have called me that are concerned about us widening or four-laning or three-laning Old Waynesboro Road due to the high school coming in. They're already having problems coming out--if you look at the map here, coming out McDade Road and taking a left on Old Waynesboro in the evening, they're having trouble getting out. Some of the people want a traffic light there, and we've done the studies. Our studies show that it does not meet the state requirements for a traffic light, so there will be none there. We've also done the studies on the traffic on Old Waynesboro. Old Waynesboro will not be widened, even as a result of the high school coming in. So what we're going to wind up here with is a lot of heavily trafficked area, more than we've got now, and it's still a two-lane road. So I think we need to keep the congestion in mind in regards to this location. Also, according to the map, and I think it's an issue, these other stores that have alcohol licenses are on four- lane, well-traveled areas that's easy to get in, easy to get out, it doesn't create congestions, there's not a residential area around that's commercial. The ones that aren't are grandfathered in. This is a new license. This is the only time we will have an issue or we will be able as a Commission, from a legal standpoint, to have an input or say on this license because it is new. Once he gets the license, he can transfer it, there's a lot of things he can do with it. We have to have some--we will have a very difficult time should we desire to get rid of an alcohol license once you get it. Page 6 But this is new, so there's no argument here to say, well, they've got one at the Goshen Country Club, that's grandfathered in. Or they've got one at another location, that's grandfathered in. This is a new license, and I think it's not compatible with the neighborhood due to the school, due to the residential area. I would encourage my Commissioners to support my motion, and I'll make that at this time, that we deny the alcohol license at this location. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion among the Commissioners? MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Meyer brought us some maps which were originally in color form, and perhaps she or one of the spokesmen would like to explain them. The colors didn't come through, but it depicts the area that this property is located with reference, I believe, to floodplains and to soils. And if she would like to explain that, the Commissioners all have black-and-white copies. If you would like to come forward, I have your original, and you might want to speak to what that shows for the record. MS. MEYER: My name is Pam Meyer and I live at 1939 McDade Road. On July the 7th I was at the Planning and Zoning Board and spoke with Terry Turner. The area on this map right here, this is the corner we're talking about right here. Approximately 100 feet in the white area on the map is not in the floodplain. Forty feet on Old Waynesboro Road, in the white area on the map, is in a special setback. No building, no parking, no signs, no structure of any kind can be put here; only landscaping on this 40 feet. On the McDade Road side, 30 feet minimum building line. It can have parking on this 30 feet, no building. Sixty feet in the white area is not in the floodplain. The blue area is all in the floodplain. He must elevate any structure two feet above the floodplain, which is approximately 156 feet. Building must have some type of vents under foundation for flood waters if he builds in the floodplain. MAYOR YOUNG: I would remind the Commission the issue before us today is the beer and wine license, not the development plan for the site, and I would appreciate you [inaudible]. Any other Commissioners have any comments? MR. SHEPARD: Just one other question for our counsel, Mr. Mayor. In considering this, Ms. Little, isn't in the initial licensing process that we can consider the presence of other licensees granted in the area, and that it's not a Page 7 consideration when a transfer comes up? Am I right on that? MS. LITTLE: Well, sir, it is one of the factors that you can consider, the number of licenses in the trading area. MR. SHEPARD: And what about the presence of minors, I mean, I think--I always like to have those criteria refreshed. The petitioner says he meets it, the Commissioner who made the motion says he doesn't, so would you refresh at least this Commissioner's memory as to the criteria? MS. LITTLE: Yes, sir. Certainly it is one of many criteria that you all have to consider in addition to things like distance requirements. And, in fact, congregation of minors is a factor that you all can consider, even if the license otherwise would meet the distance requirements, so that is in addition to the minimum criteria. MR. SHEPARD: And we also can consider the presence of other licensees that have been previously granted licenses; is that right? MS. LITTLE: Yes, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion to deny this application, please vote aye. MR. BEARD & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MR. HANDY VOTES PRESENT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I would, on behalf of the petitioner, take exception to the vote and object to it. I would submit to you that the vote was based on no legal criteria or evidence; that it was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and violated my client's constitutional rights, and specifically the rights granted to him under the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. And we request the opportunity to have an evidentiary hearing on this matter. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, and the record will so note your comments and we'll take it up [inaudible]. Madame Clerk, we'll move ahead with the agenda. CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, our addendum agenda: correction to Item 15, to delete the portion of the item which reads "and adjust salaries in the same manner as if these classifications existed at the time of the classification and compensation study". Item 34-- Page 8 MR. OLIVER: We're going to adjust that salary forward-- from this day forward, and back to committee will be the retro portion is what's proposed. CLERK: Item 34 was an error on the part of the Clerk's Office. We pulled the wrong talent bank questionnaire. It should have been Mr. Robert Osborne instead of Mr. Robert Thompson. And the addendum items: Item 1, to award the low bid to Mabus Brothers in the amount of $355,475 for proper bonds on the International Boulevard. Item 2 is to approve a capital budget in the amount of $50,000 on Pepperidge Point retention pond repair. MR. OLIVER: And if I may, on 1 and 2, just a word of explanation. If you will recall, sometime back it was agreed that we would put in a section of International Boulevard to support Bill's Dollar Store. They are indicating their construction is a little bit ahead of schedule, and they hope to be done by October. For us to complete this road, we need to get started. And what has been the delay to this point is the permitting process through the Corps of Engineers and others because of delineated wetlands. We have received that approval, and we are in a position to ask to award that. And that's the reason we brought that directly to Commission, to try to accommodate them with the timeliness of their facility and meet our contractual obligations. The second one we view as an emergency. We have a retention pond that is--one section of it anyway could give way, and there's a lift station that could be compromised should that occur, and we believe that this needs to be addressed on an expedited basis. MAYOR YOUNG: And, Madame Clerk, the Chair would ask unanimous consent for us to meet in executive session to discuss the employment of a new EMA Director. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any objection? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. We don't have unanimous consent. MAYOR YOUNG: On which item? MR. HANDY: On Item 1 and 2. MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have unanimous consent on Items 15 and--those are just corrections. On executive session, do we have unanimous consent on that? MR. HANDY: Sure. No problem with that. Page 9 MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Let's move ahead with the agenda then. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might ask on--and I have no objection to the correction change, but there was a lot of discussion in that committee, and on 15 I guess what--and I could wait, but I'll go ahead and ask it now. On the changing of the wording in that one, I realize we were going to wait on the retroactive portion on Mr. Wall in terms of dealing with that one on a period of time, that we would discuss that later. But where are we on the point of entry that will come in, Mr. Oliver, on 15? Does that go to the minimum--I know we were discussing that in there, too, and I wanted to find out where we were on that. MR. OLIVER: On 15, my understanding of the committee's action was that we would deal, like you said, Commissioner Mays, from this point forward; and that the Attorney would deal with the part about the retro portion at some subsequent meeting; and that the salary would be adjusted in the same manner as all other salaries were adjusted as part of the classification and compensation study, but they would be treated the same way. MR. MAYS: So in the retro portion of discussion, we'll deal then with mid versus entry at that time? MR. OLIVER: That's up to you all. But the understanding coming out of the committee was that it would be adjusted the same as all other employees of Augusta-Richmond County were adjusted, but that it would be done from the date of Commission approval forward and would not be done retroactive. That would be something that would be taken up later as part of--after the Attorney finished the legal aspect of the validity of that. MAYOR YOUNG: Does that answer your question, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I guess it does. We've got to discuss it anyway, but, you know, from the committee persons, if we're going to deal with mid--and I guess when we say we're going to do that like we've done everybody else's in the county, I guess what's a little confusing to me, we've done some of them so differently and with different types of percentages, and I guess that's why I didn't know whether today we were going to go with that one on mid or we were going to go with it on entry. And I can wait until we deal with it on the retroactive portion, but I just didn't want to sit here today and vote on the minimum entry and then deal with the retro several weeks from now. And then what that would do, that would mean we would totally skip over whether or not we were Page 10 going to deal with it at any higher entry level. That's what I'm trying to get the clarification on. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, if you would like to pull that item out of the consent agenda-- MR. OLIVER: We'd be glad to send it back to committee if that's the desire of the Commission. MR. MAYS: No, I think they've been waiting about two years. I'd like to go ahead on and get it done, but I just want to know whether or not I'm penalizing or helping at this point in terms of--because there was two questions asked in there. We were talking about the retro, but then we were also talking about whether that level would be adjusted at a mid point or whether it would be done at the entry level coming in, and I think those are two different questions. And the point of the way it's written, if we are going on the motion that still does not say because it says we'll do it as we've done everybody else's, but then we've done them differently. We've given some people one way, we've given some people another way, you know, and if we're going to leave it open or if it needs to have an amendment to the motion to deal with it at a mid point and then we vote that up or down, I'm willing to do that for the motion at that time. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, let's do this, Commissioner Mays, for today let's pull Item 15 out and take it up separately then, and we will then continue our discussion, because we need to move on with our consent agenda. MR. MAYS: Okay. I have no problem with that. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We'll revisit the issue here shortly. CLERK: Under the consent agenda, the consent agenda will be Items 1 through 30. That's Items 1 through 30, pulling out Item 15. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that Item 30 be pulled from the consent agenda. It had a no-action vote last time and I don't think it would qualify for the consent agenda. And even if it did, I'm going to ask that it be pulled and put it on the regular agenda. MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, I believe we have some people here to speak with reference to Item 7, so maybe we ought to pull that. It's the Quail Ridge Subdivision. Are there some people here who wanted to speak to that zoning item? Yes, we do, so let's pull that out. Page 11 CLERK: Items 7, 15, and 30. And for the benefit of any objectors on the zoning matters that are under the consent agenda, I will read the petition and the location, and the alcohol application requests. And if there are any objectors, would you please signify that by raising of your hand, please. PLANNING: 1. Z-99-65 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from First Assembly of God requesting a Special Exception to add a day care center to be operated from an existing church building per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bohler Avenue and Fenwick Street (1613 Fenwick Street). 2. Z-99-66 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition 'That the current driveway be closed and that egress and ingress be off Steiner Avenue toward the east end of the lot', a petition from Sandra E. Wimberly, on behalf of Augusta Adult Society, Inc., requesting a Special Exception to establish a debutante club per Section 26- 1, Subparagraph (l) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Steiner Avenue and Steed Street (1240 Steed Street). 3. Z-99-67 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Willia Smith requesting a change of zoning from Zone R- 1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest corner of the inter-section of Roosevelt Drive and Olive Road (1715 Olive Road). 4. Z-99-69 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Johnnie Coleman requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Holloway Drive, 223.25 feet southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of Alabama Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Holloway Drive (223 Holloway Drive). 5. Z-99-70 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lynn Corley, on behalf of Leo Ghitter, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R- MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Nina Drive, 585 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of New McDuffie Road Page 12 intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Nina Drive (2305 Nina Drive). 6. S-588 - BOARDMAN PETROLEUM PROPERTY, FINAL PLAT: Request for concurrence with the decision of Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Boardman Petroleum Property Subdivision. This subdivision is located off North Leg Road, north of Foxwood Drive, and contains 6 lots. 7. Pulled from consent agenda. 8. S-569 - HIDDEN HAVEN SUBDIVISION, FINAL PLAT: Request for concurrence with the decision of Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of T&F Development, requesting Final Plat Approval for Hidden Haven Subdivision. This subdivision is located at the intersection of Church Road and Inez Street and contains 14 lots. FINANCE: 9. Motion to approve request to abate 1996 taxes on property at (Map 18, Parcel 440) Boy Scout Road. 10. Motion to approve a refund of 1996 taxes in the amount of $129.31 to Solomon Hood for overpayment of taxes on Map 85-3, Parcel 106. 11. Motion to approve setting 1999 millage rate as recommended by the Administrator, maintaining the millage rate as is with no increase or rollback. 12. Motion to approve the purchase of an Ad in the August '99 issue of the Georgia County Government Magazine "Family Album". Funded from Publication Quarterly account in the amount of $500. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 13. Motion to approve the On-Call Policy. 14. Motion to approve a request for the 1998/1999 Home CHDO set-aside to be allocated Miracle Making Ministries, Inc. in the amount of $208,320. 15. Pulled from consent agenda. 16. Motion to approve reclassification of Auditor I (Grade 51) position to Financial Officer (Grade 53). ENGINEERING SERVICES: 17. Motion to approve option to purchase - Tax Map 20.3, Parcels 133 and 132 (Powell). 18. Motion to approve change order in the amount of $2,055.00 for additional engineering work performed by James G. Swift & Associates on Bedford Heights project. 19. Motion to award engineering services contract to ZEL Engineers for design of the connection of new plant on Old Waynesboro Road to water system and Pumping Rehabilitation at the Fort Gordon & Wrightsboro Road Booster Stations at a cost of $46,000. Page 13 PUBLIC SAFETY: 20. Motion to approve an operating lease of $6,500 per month for three years for server to reduce response time for Financial, Human Resources, Payroll, and Purchasing and to replace server whose lease expires next year. 21. Motion to approve 10% of $126,060 ($12,606), with the remaining amount being paid by grants, to purchase Bender Engineering Maintstar IV Trapeze Software Group, Inc. Trapeze4-PASS software to simplify and automate the details of fleet maintenance management and automate the solution for paratransit reservations and scheduling for the Augusta Public Transit (APT). PUBLIC SERVICES: 22. Motion to approve ISS Southern Management's bid to provide custodial contract services for a two-year period at the Airport. 23. Motion to approve Newton & Associates Work Authorization #5 for Preliminary Financial Feasibility Study related to the Terminal Development Program - Augusta Regional Airport in the amount of $37,500. 24. Motion to approve a request by Hyosuk Nam for a retail beer & wine license to be used in connection with Top K Store located at 3221 Wrightsboro Road. 25. Motion to approve and award baseball scoreboards for Diamond Lakes Regional Park to Augusta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. in the amount of $12,652.75. 26. Motion to approve and award spectator bleachers for Diamond Lakes Regional Park to Norvel Hasley & Associates in the amount of $36,200.00. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 27. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held July 6, 1999. ATTORNEY: 28. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 905 Robin Lane, 907 Robin Lane, 1440 Forest Street, 1429 Mill Street (District 2, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 137-139 McElmurray Drive (District 1, Super District 9); Hyde Park Neighborhood: 2069 Golden Rod Street (District 2, Super District 9). (Approved by the Commission on July 6, 1999 - SECOND READING) 29. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Sections 7- 190(C) (1) and (2) of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to increase building permit fees twenty percent (20%) effective September 1, 1999; establish a separate Special Revenue Fund reflecting fee increases for inspection activities retroactive to 1/1/99 with a target reserve level of $250,000. Provide for an Page 14 initial allocation of ten percent (10%) of the code enforcement cost to this fund, with the additional code enforcement expenditures to be included in the General Fund at a cost of $211,464. Funded from General Fund reserve; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinance; and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission July 6, 1999 - SECOND READING) 30. Pulled from consent agenda. (NO OBJECTORS PRESENT TO CONSENT AGENDA) MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda with the exception of those items requested to be pulled. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 7: S-581 - QUAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION, PHASE IV, FINAL PLAT: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval for Quail Ridge, Phase IV. This phase is adjacent to Quail Ridge, Section 1-B and Section II, Phase I and II, and contains 43 lots. MAYOR YOUNG: Can we see a show of hands from those who are here? (FOUR OBJECTORS PRESENT) MAYOR YOUNG: You are objecting to the approval of the plat; is that correct? SPEAKER: Yes. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Is Mr. Patty here? MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Mayor, I'm Bob Austin, I'm sitting in for George today. This is 43 lots, everything is in, it meets our regulations, and the Planning Commission has already approved it. All the departments' reviews are in. MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? Is there a spokesman for the subdivision? If you'll please come to the microphone and give us your name and address. Page 15 MR. JACKSON: John Jackson, 2770 Cross Haven Drive, Quail Ridge/Quail Hollow. What we're objecting to is not necessarily the building of houses. This is understood, profit is going to be made by whoever owns the property. We've met with Mr. Nordahl a couple of times, and the last time was about two months ago. We tried to come to an agreement. What we were talking about is the size of the houses that he's putting in the area. The homes there standing--and we've gone through this a thousand times, everybody probably knows it by heart. Most of the homes are at least 1,800 to larger size. What he's putting in is anywhere from 12 to 13/14 hundred foot houses, and that, to me, is not helping our area at all. And we've had a lot of things come up before this Commission just now. All of these things where people are complaining about the liquor license and the differences, these are public businesses. This is our homes, this is where we represent our lives, we live and we pay. We don't feel that our property values ought to be devalued or defaced by those smaller homes that he's putting in there. Now, he told us that he would agree to build larger homes if, as he put it, we would at least be a spokesman for him in his building and in the selling of those homes. That's kind of holding a gun over our heads. To come in and just build houses that he's building in an area that we live in, I just don't see where it's helping. Everybody is always talking about South Augusta, slum area. You can't upgrade a place by coming in and building things of lesser value than what is already there. It simply can't be done in any neighborhood, yours, mine, or anybody else's. And if Mr. Nordahl is conscious of us as citizens in that area, I think he could reconsider. He's got 43 lots there. Some of those lots are about 70 feet wide, I think, and he's going to build homes on them about 12/14 hundred square feet. He can still make his profit building larger homes, and those homes will sell because the neighborhood that he's building in is a darn good neighborhood. And we have a reputation for being a good neighborhood, and I don't see the sense in devaluing what we have by allowing Mr. Nordahl to build those homes in that area. And, in fact, some of the ones he's already built are not standing up too well to use, even at this moment, so the area is going down, and this is something that we think will certainly affect all of us in that area. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Little, in regards to that, since we haven't passed an ordinance that would require a developer to basically build the same size homes, do we have legal grounds here to turn this down? MS. LITTLE: It's my understanding that you can't restrict the size of homes, that there's not authority for that at this time, so I would advise you not to do so. Page 16 MR. BRIDGES: Where is this located at, Quail Ridge? Is that attached--off Tobacco Road, Mr. Colclough? MR. COLCLOUGH: Yeah, it's in the back of Quail Hollow. MR. BEARD: I was just wondering, and maybe someone needs to refresh my memory. Is this the same subdivision that came up some time ago or is this a different-- MR. OLIVER: It's been up before you several times. MR. POWELL: The one with the people's ordinance. MAYOR YOUNG: Is there a motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion we approve. MR. SHEPARD: I second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. MR. POWELL: I make a substitute motion we deny. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion to deny. Any discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we have a legal ruling as to how we can deny this motion or what basis we're denying this? We can't make a decision on how we're going to vote to deny or not deny if we don't have a legal basis to deny the motion. MS. LITTLE: Well, I mean, you've got competing motions. You've got a motion and a second on the floor to-- MAYOR YOUNG: I think what he's asking, is there any legal basis on which the Commission can vote to deny. MS. LITTLE: Well, I've advised you that you have no legal basis on which to deny it. I mean it's my advice to you not to deny it. So I mean you can proceed against that advice, but that is, you know, what I've told you. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny the final plat for the Quail Ridge Subdivision, Phase IV and it's been seconded. All in favor, please-- MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to ask was, and it can go under either--well, go substitute with this Page 17 on the floor. But in reference to the last meeting we had at the real estate company, the plans that were--and I'm saying this mainly for the information for the Mayor and other Commissioners that were not at that meeting. It wasn't one that they were supposed to be at, but there was a meeting held which Mr. Colclough, myself, and representatives of the real estate company, mainly because we sit in reference to that particular district in terms of representation. But where do we stand at the point, whether it's anything that can be done from the so-called legal point or not, in reference to the proposed compromise or the proposed last compromise? Was anything done in reference to that or where do we stand at this point? Because when it came back--there were things that were not put on paper that night, but there were proposals to come back in reference to trying to get to an average size square footage on those homes. And that was where it was left at, and then there was to be a follow-up meeting that would basically meet with residents and real estate to come back and to see if there could be an agreement on it. Now, naturally there is a contention that there may not have been a legal right to do it, and I think it was expressed in that meeting, but in the effort of good faith the residents and the real estate company met. And I think before we vote really on either motion it would be good to know where that compromise stands as to whether it's one that's still ongoing, whether it's one that's broken down, or whether it's one that can even be supported, and I think that might help some with either one of the motions. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Well, let's see if we have an answer. Go ahead, sir. MR. NORDAHL: I'd like to ask a question. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, can you answer Mr. Mays' question? MR. NORDAHL: What was your question, sir? MR. MAYS: Where do we basically stand? Is there an ongoing working situation to be compromised on, has that broken down or, you know, just where are we at that point from that last meeting till now? Because what we may be able to do, if it's still ongoing, then maybe, Mr. Mayor, we might could pull it off, do a delay, and then give them the opportunity to get back together on the finalized plans. And then if that breaks down, then we vote it up or down in whatever way it will fall. But if they've still got something going-- MAYOR YOUNG: Well, let's find out. Do you know where the compromise stands? Page 18 MR. JACKSON: As far as between us and Mr. Nordahl, there has been no contact since the last meeting when Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough were present. And what I wanted to know is if this thing has to have approval, why is Mr. Nordahl over there clearing lots today, last week? I mean if you need approval on this. You see, to me, the whole thing shows there's something rotten in Denmark as far as that part goes. You don't tell me he needs approval when he's already doing the work to build the houses. He's clearing the land, clearing the lots. He's already set those up and he's clearing them, so what's the approval for? MAYOR YOUNG: All right. The Chair had called the question on the substitute motion. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, if I'm in order, could I have some discussion, you know, during-- MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. If you're ready, go ahead. MR. POWELL: Gentlemen, last time we met I put an ordinance on the table to try to protect the people's property values. The intent of this motion today is also in an attempt to protect the people's property values. The one thing that I've heard from the public in meetings monthly is the one job that they want us to do is to protect their investments. I know the Madame County Attorney here, as our regular County Attorney, has an opinion that we don't have a legal right to deny this petition, but I want you to know we have a moral right. And I think that we need to support the public and I think that we need to bring the developers into play, that if you're going to tie your road system to an existing subdivision, then you don't degrade the people who have already made the investment. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Beard, did you want to say something? I thought I saw you poised there. MR. BEARD: Yes, I did, because I'm a little confused, and I do readily agree with the people who are seeking this petition. It appears to me from the last meeting that we had that there was some negotiation, and I believe Mr. Colclough and Commissioner Mays were involved in those. Now, I want to know possibly from Commissioner Colclough is there a continuous negotiation on at this point or where we are on that so that I can vote one way or the other on this. MR. COLCLOUGH: Let me see can I answer your question. I got a call from Ms. Lake Sunday night. Nordahl had not met with these folks again, and she wanted me to find out where was the plans. So I called Nathan Youngblood to find out what has happened, and he said he and, I guess, Nordahl was putting Page 19 the plans together and they were going to meet with this neighborhood association because they had put together a package of larger homes as in that agreement to come back to the neighborhood association for further discussions. So, you know, what I would like to see us do is to kind of delay this and see if we can get these two groups back together. Now, if they don't agree with what he has come back with, then, like Mr. Mays, we vote it up or down. MR. BEARD: I've got one other question that I want to ask our Attorney and maybe the Administrator there. What type of permit is used to clear land prior to being accepted-- MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Beard, I think I can answer that. You get a grading permit, once your engineering approvals are in, to disturb the land. MR. BEARD: But then you would need to have a building permit when you get ready to build the homes; right? MR. OLIVER: You could not build without it, but I mean you could have a piece of land that you may clear for farming purposes, for any given purposes, so there would be valid reasons you could have a grading permit and do grading. MR. BEARD: But in order to build, they would have to come back to-- MR. OLIVER: You can't build without a building permit and without approved subdivision-- MAYOR YOUNG: So as part of this grading you can't put the streets in or utilities or anything like that. MR. BEARD: I just wanted the people to know that and that's why I asked the question. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to inquire of the maker of the substitute motion if he would consider heeding what Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough had said and consider that we not take action on this today, but allow the forces of compromise to complete the negotiation that apparently they have not completed, and maybe carry it over to our--well, I don't want to carry it over too long, maybe the first meeting in August. That should give everybody a deadline, a time certain to work against. MR. POWELL: I will accept that amendment. MAYOR YOUNG: So we have a substitute motion on the floor to postpone this issue till the first meeting in August. Page 20 MR. COLCLOUGH: I'll second it. MAYOR YOUNG: Any further discussion on the issue? Let's go ahead and vote then. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. MR. HANDY: I thought we had a substitute motion. MAYOR YOUNG: That is. He amended his substitute motion. MR. POWELL: I accepted the amendment. CLERK: Mr. Brigham, do you accept that? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, I accept it. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR YOUNG: So for the benefit of the neighbors, the issue has been put off until our next meeting, and so we'll have another, what, two weeks or so to continue negotiations. Thank you. CLERK: Item 15: Motion to approve the reclassification of Accounting Technician I position, grade 43, to Payroll Supervisor, grade 48; reclassify Accounting Clerk II position, grade 39, to Payroll Technician, grade 41; and adjust salaries in the same manner as if these classifications existed at the time of the classification and compensation study. MR. OLIVER: And these adjustments would be done in the same manner as all other employees of Augusta-Richmond County from the date of approval forward, with any retro portion of it, which I'm in agreement with, to be dealt with by the Attorney and subsequently come back to the Mayor and Commission for consideration. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Mays, this is the item we were discussing earlier. Did you have some additional questions about this? MR. MAYS: Yes. I just was--and I'm not on that committee. I was over there being nosy that day, before they decided to run me out, and I just wanted to get that clear. I have no problem so much with the motion, I just wanted to get clear where we were going in on--or has that even been discussed, Randy, per se, or is that being carried over, the Page 21 retro side? MR. OLIVER: The retro side is being carried over because Mr. Wall was not in a position--he received some information from those two employees the day of that committee meeting and had not had an opportunity to review that in the case law, and at that time he asked that that be carried over to the next committee meeting and that be decided. It was my suggestion that we go forward with the adjustment, which I believe is fair because, as you, Mr. Mays, I believe these people have waited long enough and it's not their, you know, fault that that's occurred. So our suggestion would be, as the committee agreed, was to go forward with the adjustment and let the retro portion come up later. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I was going to ask the other part of your question. Randy, do you have any idea where you're going to recommend that it would come in? MR. OLIVER: I would recommend that the retro portion be done, but that's a legal that Mr. Wall-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, we're through with the retro. We understand that; we can't do that. But where are the ones-- where are they coming in at, mid point? MR. OLIVER: No, I believe that they should be treated the same way as all the other people that participated in the salary study and adjusted in the same manner. And that would be my recommendation, because to treat them differently would open us up to difficulties and create lines at each one of your doors. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So all of the others that have been adjusted have come in at a certain point? MR. OLIVER: Unless you all have approved something to the contrary, that is the case, yes, sir. MR. MAYS: That was my confusion point. As I said, I was over in there tending to their business that day, but I thought there was a question in reference to going back into the buck study not only on the fact that the salaries had to be adjusted--and I stand to be corrected, but I was thinking that there was a dual question in there as to where they were to be corrected at and what was presented and as to whether or not we were making the adjustment based on one situation or making the adjustment based on another one as to where it should have been, and the one where it should have been would have been the one where you would have brought in at the mid point level. And that's where I'm still unclear. So if it's going in at the entry level as such or at another level, then Page 22 I'm going to make a substitute motion, since it's--you know, I guess it's being said we have to do that in order for it to be done, and I'll make a substitute motion that that's where it be brought in, at the higher of the two that was discussed. Now, where that was, I don't know, whether that was at mid point or whether that was somewhere in-between thereof. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MR. OLIVER: And I understand that; however, as I say, that would be inconsistent with what was done for all other employees and I think it subjects us to a lot of potential problems and criticisms. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm not--Mr. Mayor, just one more point. What we're saying here, that everybody else that has come in in this city came in at the same, quote, level. Is that what you're saying? MR. OLIVER: No. Unless you all approve something to the contrary, okay, that was approved by this Mayor and Commission, there were no other people that were done differently. And what I am concerned about is I think that there are going to be a number of people that are going to call you up on the telephone and say--for whatever reason, if you all treat these two differently than has been done in the past, they're going to call you up and have 18 reasons as to why theirs should be different, too, and I think you're going to open yourself up to getting those types of calls. It's not that I--you know, I feel that these people do a terrific job and I appreciate everything they've done, but I think we have to be consistent across the board, and the only exceptions to this have been approved by the Mayor and Commission based on qualification. I mean the lady at the Aquatics Center, for example, was brought in at mid range based on those qualifications-- MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we can reasonably say that these two young ladies we brought in at mid range, is that--that's what we're driving at? MR. OLIVER: You can make any case that you want, but I think to treat these different than all the other employees of Augusta-Richmond County were treated that participated in the salary study opens you up to some potential criticism and I think some difficulty and challenges on down the road. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And all of the other people have waited for at least what they say are two years that they have waited, and it was not their fault that the-- MR. OLIVER: Well, we went over this in committee, and Page 23 the reason for that was, if you recall, Mr. McKie left--he retired. And when he left, that was during the part that this study was going on. Mr. Greenway, who was acting, brought an organizational chart forward. The Commission decided to wait at that point until a comptroller was hired. A comptroller was hired, and then he came back with the suggested organization. He came back with, you know, these two positions, felt these should be the grades. Mr. Etheridge has reviewed it and he has agreed. And the only thing we're saying is we agree with the grades, however, we believe that it should be treated--and what we were trying to do--and Mr. Wall isn't, you know, totally comfortable with this at this point. What we think is, to be fair to these two individuals, that they should be treated the same as all other employees were if this would have been in effect at the time--if it was put into effect at the time that the salary study was done. So we recommended it be done the same way as for all other employees at the time the salary study was done, from the day you approve it forward, and then Mr. Wall will address the retroactive portion at a subsequent date. MAYOR YOUNG: Does that answer your concerns, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Mays? MR. OLIVER: No. He hasn't said too much. I mean he said a lot, but he didn't say--he did not say whether they would come in at--all of the others, all of the hundreds of others-- MR. OLIVER: The one individual was below the entry point of the range and we are recommending that they be moved to the entry point of the range, adjusted, you know, for whatever adjustments have occurred. The other person was within the salary range at the study, and even changing this would be within the salary range of the study; however, she was capped out for the one particular year, and we are recommending that that be adjusted so that she wouldn't be penalized for that as if it was done. But we think to arbitrarily move somebody within the salary range opens you up to having to come back and perhaps make those value judgments at a subsequent point for other employees. MR. H. BRIGHAM: He's getting closer. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I believe Mr. Brigham seconded my substitute motion. If maybe I could--if he would accept an amendment to my substitute motion, since there is going to be a salary item of personnel discussed in legal session, and this does involve personnel, I think to clear out some things--and it won't clear out everything because the retro- active portion, we still are going to wait on Mr. Wall to deal with that. But I think there are some questions in reference Page 24 to this study as it relates to the position in there and a lot of, by buck's own admission, not only with this position but with others, that was greatly flawed, I would like maybe to change that substitute motion to a motion that would allow it to go into legal session under personnel to be further discussed at the time when you deal with the one on the Emergency Management Director. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I accept that, Mr. Mays. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Let me ask the Attorney for a clarification, Mr. Mays. As I understand it, if we do this in executive session we have to talk about a specific employee and that person's compensation, right, and not general discussion of the salary study; is that correct? MS. LITTLE: Yes, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Is that your understanding, Mr. Mays, and that will suffice for what you want to do? MR. MAYS: I have no problem with it. I have a pretty good history of how this one has gone about. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a substitute motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion on that? All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. MR. KUHLKE VOTES NO; MR. HANDY NOT VOTING. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Next item? CLERK: Item 30: Motion to approve an Ordinance prohibiting acceptance of Deeds of Dedication to streets and utilities within subdivisions without compatible restrictive covenants. (No action vote by Commission July 6 - SECOND READING) MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have a motion on this item? MR. MAYS: I will move the Powell motion be approved. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on Item 30? MR. OLIVER: And since our learned counsel didn't have the benefit of Mr. Wall's, I'll stand in a little bit for Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall essentially indicated at the last meeting that this was a bit unprecedented and we were not familiar with any Page 25 other jurisdiction in the United States that had comparable regulations. This would regulate the square footage of house sizes, among other things, and he indicated he believed that this was unconstitutional. MS. LITTLE: That's true. He has communicated that to me, and indicated that we do not approve of it and do not recommend passage of this ordinance. MAYOR YOUNG: But if it passes, you will defend it. MS. LITTLE: Of course. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Any discussion? MR. MAYS: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I usually like to fight Mr. Wall face to face, but he is absent. In his absence, I would hope that the Commission would approve this inasmuch as there was not a law present in order to deal with what we are voting on that we had within our jurisdiction to rule on. I think in Mr. Wall's--one of his great opinions, and I've told him so on this floor and I'll say it in his absence, to a point that simply because it was nowhere else doesn't mean the fact that it has to be illegal because he didn't find it. I think he has been a great creator of unprecedented law in the past and is a very good creative writer in terms of putting ordinances into place and putting anything else into place and making it pass and make it become law, so this will just follow the trend in which follows his tradition in terms of doing that. So in his absence we are following in his speed as he would do it if we were not here in terms of the six-vote passage of what is there. And I think just as he has defended other things that this county has spent hundreds of thousand dollars on, in many cases to the point of losing them, then I don't think this one in terms of protecting a neighborhood and other neighborhoods, that you're going to have any folk of any decent nature that's going to rise up and take this one to task to sue us. If so, it'll certainly be for a good cause, and I couldn't find a better fellow to represent us and defend us against what he's written other than Mr. Wall. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I urge you to support this resolution. I think it's something that we need to do to preserve the property rights of the citizens. And the people are crying out for this. If someone challenges it, it's going to have to go before a judge, and the judge is elected the same way we are and he needs to be accountable to the people as well. And I think that we need to move forward in preserving the property rights of the people and just quit stalling. Page 26 MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Kuhlke, welcome back. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor and colleagues, I'm sympathetic with the problems that come before us as far as zoning goes, but I'm a strong believer that this is just another intrusion of government on private enterprise. And I don't know whether it's legal or whether it's not legal, but I think businesses are restricted enough by laws and rules and regulations of government, and as a result of that I'm not going to vote for this. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I think we went through this before, and I have listened to the counsel's arguments and I don't think we're going to sit in this body and change the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the United States. And if our counsel tells us that this is not a good shot-- certainly the purposes of the ordinance I support, but it's not the means to do it. And I just think with the rather clear view of our counsel that it's unconstitutional, that we shouldn't be exercising an exercise in futility, despite its good intent. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. The Chair is going to call the question. All in favor of this ordinance, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION TIES 5-5. CLERK: It's 5-5, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Mayor, you just might get it. MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair votes aye. MOTION CARRIES 6-5. MR. OLIVER: This is the first reading. You'll get another chance at it. MS. LITTLE: No, this is the second reading. MR. OLIVER: No, this is the first reading. No action was taken on the first reading. MR. POWELL: It wasn't in the motion to waive the second reading? MR. OLIVER: You need unanimous consent, Mr. Powell, to do that. Yeah, this is the first reading. The first time it Page 27 didn't do anything. CLERK: Item 31: Z-99-60 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) The only commercial use of the property shall be for office space to conduct business as specified in a submission by Karen E. Schueller Burke entitled "Response to Zoning Hearing of June 7, 1999 for Rezoning to B-2 of parcel 19, 930 Stevens Creek Road, Augusta, GA"; 2) There shall be no storage of products at this site. Products shall be shipped directly from manufacturer to customer; 3) Training sessions or conferences may be held to educate distributors or potential distributors as to the use of the products between the hours of 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. There shall be no more than two cars stored on the property at any time for such purposes; 4) There shall be no additional buildings constructed, but shed can be replaced. No new paved areas in excess of 1,000 square feet, and signage shall conform to Section 25-B; 5) There shall be no automotive repairs or services conducted on the property except as provided for in stipulations 1-4; and 6) If the property ceases to be used in conformance with stipulations 1-5, then the zoning classification shall immediately revert to R-1A, a petition from Karen Schuessler Burke requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road, 970 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of River Watch Parkway intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road (930 Stevens Creek Road). MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have any objectors? (NO OBJECTORS PRESENT) MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Let us hear from the Planning Commission, then we'll move forward. MR. AUSTIN: Well, there were at least two objectors at the Planning Commission hearing, and we came up with what we thought was an acceptable compromise to their concerns and maybe that means that they agree with us by their absence. But this is a mixed residential/light commercial area and B-2 zoning is being requested for an auto-related operation, which is primarily a training area, and we think these conditions that we've laid out will protect the other property owners in the area. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Austin, don't leave so quick. Since you said this is a training facility, does it have to be classified B-2 to be a training facility? Page 28 MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Brigham, we didn't have anything listed in neighborhood business that would accommodate this particular use. In hindsight, we might could have added it by resolution, but we--it wasn't listed the way our ordinance is. If it's not listed in B-1, it requires B-2. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this the only B-2 in this area? MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Crowell has got a development adjacent to this property that is zoned B-2, General Business. We did know what it was going to become when we did zone it a few years back when it happened. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is that the warehouses? MR. AUSTIN: It's a mixture of offices and mini ware- houses, and mini warehouses a little bit closer to River Watch than the offices. The offices are adjacent to this. MR. J. BRIGHAM: The offices are more professional in nature, I believe. MR. AUSTIN: Yes, sir, or at least neighborhood business. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is there some kind of an amendment that I can put onto this to keep it into training? MR. HANDY: Mr. Austin, excuse me, why don't you let him know what happened--what the training is going to be with the selling of the products [inaudible]. MR. AUSTIN: Yeah, I think one of the conditions actually does that, Mr. Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I don't--I'm concerned as to what it can become when it ceases to be a training facility by being a general B-2. MR. AUSTIN: I think we took care of that, too. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm still concerned with it. MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have a motion? MR. HANDY: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Page 29 MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't see Mr. Powell standing up for people's rights necessarily right now. MR. POWELL: Mr. Brigham, it looks to me like the thing has been amended to death. That's where my concern is at. I mean I would have a lot less problem turning it down than I would be amending it to death. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion on the floor for approval. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 32: New Application, A.N. 99-48: Consider a request by Michael Williams for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Awaji Sushi Bar & Japanese Steakhouse located at 2701 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Michael Williams, I live at 2515 Center West Parkway. Ma'am, I would like to correct you, it is not a liquor license, it's a beer and wine license. MAYOR YOUNG: The agenda says, yeah, beer and wine. SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, this application came to the last Public Services Committee, and we had objectors, so we brought it forward to the full Commission because we didn't have the Sheriff's Department background information on it. But now we do have it, and we have all the signatures. They do meet all the qualifications, and we ask for approval. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that the "no" vote was due to the Sunday sales. MR. BRIDGES: Same here, Mr. Mayor. MR. COLCLOUGH: Same here, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR YOUNG: Let the record so show. Page 30 CLERK: Yes, sir. Item 34: Consider the appointment of the following to the Industrial Development Authority for a two-year term: A. Mr. Ron Brown B. Ms. Charlene Sizemore C. Mr. Robert Osborne D. Mr. Lawton Wylds MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that these appointments be made. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, isn't this for a four-year appointment? CLERK: No, these are for two-year terms. MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, ma'am, I don't--that was for the initial terms. MAYOR YOUNG: Yeah, the initial term was two years and these are for four years. So let the motion reflect the appointments for four-year terms. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, a question and point of order. Aren't these nominations, which wouldn't require a second? And we have a letter in our book here that one of the sitting members of the Development Authority, Mr. Serotta, desired to be reappointed. I don't know how he didn't get in the book, but he has given this. And I'd ask the Attorney to rule whether this is a nomination requiring no second, whether the nominations are still open. I believe it's a nomination where any Commissioner can make a nomination of an individual. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, these four have been nominated. I think you can add any additional names to this that you wish. MR. SHEPARD: So if we treat Mr. Beard's motion as a nomination, then there's no second, and then the nominations are still open. Is that-- MAYOR YOUNG: That would be the Chair's interpretation, yes. MR. SHEPARD: All right. So I would further nominate Mr. Serotta. He's served and he apparently wishes to continue to serve, so I would nominate Mr. Abram Serotta. MR. HANDY: If that's the case, we have to do them Page 31 individually then. MR. SHEPARD: Correct. MAYOR YOUNG: Are there any other nominations? MR. POWELL: Move that nominations be closed. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. The nominations are closed and we'll move ahead. The first person nominated was Mr. Ron Brown. All in favor of Mr. Brown, please vote aye. MR. SHEPARD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Ms. Charlene Sizemore. MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Mr. Robert Osborne. MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Mr. Lawton Wylds. MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So we have chosen the four members. CLERK: Item 35: Consider appointment of one of the following to the Region 12 MHMRSA Board due to the expiration of term of Ms. Mary Jane Shirey: E. Ms. Deanna Williams F. Mr. Sam Sibley G. Ms. Sharon E. Samuels H. Mr. John A. Sherman MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Ms. Deanna Williams. MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have any other nominations? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Sam Sibley. Page 32 And I've got a question about Ms. Williams. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. And do these other two need to be nominated, or since they're on the agenda are they assumed to be nominated? CLERK: No, sir, that's just recommendations. MAYOR YOUNG: Recommendations? All right. So we have Ms. Williams and Mr. Sibley nominated. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a ruling from somebody whether Ms. Williams can serve on the Region 12 Mental Health Board due to the fact she's a member of the Community Mental Health Board and this board oversees the other board, and I don't know if she can sit on both boards, and that's my concern. MS. LITTLE: She would not be able to sit on both boards. She would have to serve on only one. Presumably that would be Regional if she is appointed to that one. MAYOR YOUNG: So if she were appointed to this, then she would have to resign from the other? MS. LITTLE: Yes, sir. MAYOR YOUNG: Or decline the election to this board? MS. LITTLE: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: It's my understanding, Mr. Mayor, that she is going to resign from that other board. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I hadn't heard. That's the reason I was asking and the reason I made another nomination. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Any other nominations? MR. HANDY: Well, if she gets appointed, she'll automatically be resigned; right? She won't have to resign, that will resign her. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, I think that's her choice. MR. HANDY: If we give it to her, she don't have to accept it, that's what you're saying? MAYOR YOUNG: That's right. She has to take one or the other--choice. All in favor then of Ms. Deanna Williams, please vote aye. Page 33 MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 36: Select location for Administrative Offices for Augusta-Richmond County. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Oliver, do you want to present this, or Mr. Acree, or how do you want to do this? MR. OLIVER: Well, how about I'll give the broad brush and Mr. Acree can answer any specific question. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. MR. OLIVER: As part of the retreat and part of the prior workshop that was held, you asked us to look at three alternatives. And before I get into those three alternatives, let me discuss the decisions that were already reached: that the Joint Law Enforcement Center would remain the facility to house the State Court and that the State Court offices as well as courtrooms would be held down there; that this building would turn into a judicial complex for the remaining judges as well as the District Attorney and supporting constitutional officers; and that you asked us to look at finding administrative space for city/county government consolidated offices. You asked us to look at three options, which we did, which are included in your book as backup. The three options that we looked at were the Davison's building, the Belk's building at the Regency Mall, and the construction of a new site on Damascus Road. Based on that analysis, we came to the conclusion that statistically there's not that much difference in the cost of the three various approaches. And we had some reservations about the Damascus Road site for a number of reasons, the principal one was due to parking limitations because of the geographic configuration of the site at that particular location. So the two locations that we remained with were the Davison building and the Belk's building at Regency Mall, and Mr. Acree can address any specific questions that may not have been as clear as you would have liked in the background. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could I ask a question? Randy, if we had not given the land to the First Tee program, would we have had enough land to build a center at Damascus Road? MR. OLIVER: It would have been on the other side of the street, and it would have been very awkward, to be candid. MR. HANDY: So the land we gave to the First Tee wouldn't have made any difference to build a center? MR. OLIVER: Not really. I mean it's not a good Page 34 situation to cross a street like that. I mean it would have mitigated it. Clearly we could make that work; the difficulty, however, was that we believe in the future it could cause a potential problem and we don't think, if you're making a decision today, that would be a thing that we would want to go into knowing that might be a problem. MR. HANDY: Which one is a problem, building the center for us or First Tee, that you're referring to the problem? MR. OLIVER: No, I mean from the standpoint of not having enough parking. And Mr. Acree can address how he did the parking, etc. MR. HANDY: Oh, you're saying--okay, I think we're not communicating right now. The building--if we had not given the land away, would we have had enough parking for the new building on Damascus Road, or are you saying that the building could be built on Damascus Road, but the parking has to be across the street? That's what you're saying? MR. OLIVER: The First Tee property that we deeded to that particular endeavor was adjacent to the golf course and the natatorium, that side of the street. And even if we were to reserve that property for parking for the other side of the street, we would have--people would have been crossing the road, which because of the amount of the traffic and the speed of the traffic on that road is not ideal. MR. HANDY: Okay. Okay, now we're communicating. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, what kind of motion do we need here, a motion to enter negotiations with the owners of the designated property? MR. OLIVER: I think that would be appropriate. I mean obviously we could proceed down a path and we may not reach something that's agreeable, and then we'd have to come back to you all if condemnation--you know, if we wanted to do that. But at this point I think it would be just to ask for the ability to go out and to negotiate a purchase price. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that we enter negotiation with the owners of the Belk's building in regards to an administration building. And I think we ought to do the same thing the Georgia Games Committee did, and they found that to be an ideal location for centrality, and I think it's something we need to seriously consider and I make that in the form of a motion. MR. POWELL: Second. Page 35 MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we do the same thing with the owners of the Davison's building and the Green's building. MR. SHEPARD: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second to look at the Davison's building. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this: it appears to me that one of the decisions to really make a final determination on this--I don't really know why we need two motions. Why don't we gather that information from both sources, and that may give us a better chance to analyze it. Mr. Oliver, I see you rubbing your head. It appears to me that-- MR. OLIVER: Well, the difficulty with that is to negotiate with both of these parties', is that we would be going to them and saying, well, we may buy your building and we may not buy your building. I would rather go to somebody and say we're interested in buying your building, give me your best price, and if they can't give me a good price and a fair price, then to come back and say let's go to option number two. But I think that it leaves a large amount of uncertainty in the process if we go both ways at the same time. We can do that, however. MR. KUHLKE: Well, my problem, Mr. Mayor, is that while the report that came back indicates that administrative space is going to cost about the same in any location, and I'm not sure that's actually the case, the condition of the existing buildings that are there, the configuration of the buildings, Mr. Acree, I think has a significant impact on what the cost is. Just to pick out one location and not have all of the information just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But I'll leave my motion intact and let's see where we go. MR. COLCLOUGH: I would just like to make another--a third motion, is that we-- MAYOR YOUNG: Well, you can't do that. You can only have two motions out at one time. MR. COLCLOUGH: Okay. But I would just like to see us not even utilize any of the old buildings and look at some property and build a new government complex. I mean we're one of the largest governments in the area and I don't see why we Page 36 can't have a new complex rather than refurbishing old buildings. MR. OLIVER: And that's perfectly understandable if that's the will of the Mayor and Commission, but I want to make it clear that at that space meeting we had we were asked to look at three alternatives and that's what we've done. And if we want to expand upon that, we'll be glad to do that. MAYOR YOUNG: I might point out for the record just a couple of issues. We have approved $100,000 to Greater Augusta Progress for a study of Regency Mall and the environs, and we don't know whether a potential office complex out there would be compatible with the use that would be recommended. Secondly, I have received a call from a businessman who is located in the Green's building who is very upset about the thought of having to move out of the Green's building. Mr. Handy, you know who we're talking about. You've heard from him, too, I'm sure. MR. HANDY: I was going to mention that. I'm glad you did that because I was coming next with my comment about that same-- MAYOR YOUNG: Would you like to follow up on that? MR. HANDY: I will when you finish. MAYOR YOUNG: I'm finished. MR. HANDY: Okay. Well, I just want to let my fellow Commissioners know that I'm not saying we should go to Belk's and I'm not saying we should build a new complex, but I am saying that I will not vote for Davison's if it means putting James Brown's radio station off of Broad Street, and that's what we're doing if we do that. And I cannot do that and I will not do that, and that's my vote. I'll go anywhere other than Davison's if it means getting rid of James Brown's radio station. MR. OLIVER: The consultant's report provides for the relocation of that particular parcel. The primary purpose of that is to use it for a drop-off point, and I want to be clear with that because that's what the consultant report provided for. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard, you had your hand up. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I noticed Mr. Acree cites in the disadvantages to the Belk's building site that it has high operational cost due to the large volume of floor space, which doesn't exist at the other location. I've asked Page 37 him to look at that. It seems like to me that we're buying a pig in a poke, so to speak, if we go into that with extremely high operational costs which might negate any savings in that location. Plus, following up on the comments, I think that the Mayor has been looking at Laney-Walker Boulevard and others and have been looking at a corridor to tie that area particularly to the Riverwalk, and it seems like to me that a logical step in that corridor would be to locate this city's administrative offices on the James Brown Boulevard. And also I think, Mr. Mayor, that you're going to see the Library Board recommending the presence of the library be enhanced along that corridor as well. We need to tie these two areas together. I think when you come downtown you expect to find certain things, and one of the things you expect to find in the city center is the government. And I think it may be more centrally located, but history, gentlemen, has cast the center of this area, this trade area, this multi-state area, right where we sit, and I don't think we're going to repeal that by locating our offices any differently, and I would commend the Davison's site to you for those reasons. Thank you. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Shepard has been real thorough with reading Mr. Acree's report, but there's one thing that did concern me in Mr. Acree's report. It said that the Regency Mall location, the building had outlived its normal life expectancy. But I did not see that in the Davison's building report that that building also had outlived its expectancy, which I'm sure it did because it's several decades older than the mall, if I'm not wrong. So if we're going to go back and study it, we're going to go back and look at it, look at other locations, that's fine, but don't bring a tilted report in here. Bring us the facts and we'll make the decision. But to say that a building that was built in the '70s has outlived its useful life expectancy in a report and then come back and say that the Davison's building--make no mention that it's outlived its normal life expectancy is kind of strange. And maybe it's something, Mr. Acree, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Kuhlke, the subcommittee overlooked, but it's a concern of mine. I mean let's put all the facts on the table. MR. OLIVER: I think Mr. Acree can address that. MR. ACREE: Mr. Powell, typically a building built in the '30s, '40s, and '50s were built to a different level of construction detail and quality than commercial structures in the '70s. And that, I submit to you, is why I said what I said. The Regency Mall [inaudible] financial forecast about 25 years. That building has effectively lasted the 25 years. So it will require some significant modifications and mechanical system upgrades as far as the volume. The operational costs, there's a large volume for a given floor space. And your typical department store space, because of Page 38 the high ceilings, that will keep our operational costs high for heating and air conditioning. MR. POWELL: So you're telling me that the Davison's building wouldn't require mechanical upgrade? In other words, people 100 years ago, or 50/75 years ago, they knew that they were going to have an office complex there, and they were planning on it lasting 100 years, so they got the most modern mechanical system that was made back then, so we won't have to upgrade that one over there? MR. ACREE: No, sir, I didn't say that. MR. POWELL: Okay. Well, that's where you were headed. But give me both sides. Don't give me the one down side of location, give me the down side of every location. And I'm not trying to poke at you, but I really felt like that the report left some things out. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Acree, the information that you provided us came right out of the Duckett study; am I correct? MR. ACREE: Even space on that, yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah. So we paid 100 and some odd thousand dollars for a study, and Mr. Powell is now saying the study wasn't any good. That's what it sounds like to me. MR. POWELL: That's exactly what I'm telling you. MR. KUHLKE: We should have hired Mr. Powell. MR. POWELL: Well, maybe you should have, Mr. Kuhlke. You would have come up with a suitable location centrally located. I'll second that, Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR YOUNG: All right, let's stick with the merits of the discussion here. Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Mays. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make sort of a rebuttal to the Duckett study that Mr. Kuhlke mentioned. The lady that did that, when she was here--if I'm not mistaken, her background is urban planner, and that's her original degree or training. And she told me that--and maybe she didn't tell everybody and y'all can--I think y'all trust me to know I'm telling the truth. She told me that she was always prejudiced to develop the downtown areas because of that background, and I think that's why you get some of the--I mean you can't help when you write a report to emphasize those things that you think need to be emphasized, and I think that's the character of the report. In regards to Mr. Shepard's comments concerning we need to keep this downtown, Page 39 in that area, if this was still Augusta and everything else was still Richmond County I think that would be a good argument. I think that would be a very valid argument in that case. I think under the concept of consolidation in which the entire boundaries of the county now are the city limits of Augusta, that that is no longer a valid argument. We're here to serve all the citizens of this county and we're here to accommodate those citizens, and a very efficient way of accommodating them is to put all the administrative services in one location and a central location that everybody can get to without having to travel from McBean or Blythe down to view the Savannah River every time they come to the government complex. So I would just throw that out as a point of comment. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm going to be a little bit different again. I agree with Mr. Kuhlke for one reason in reference to [inaudible]. Bill mentioned about both of those motions being tied together because we were talking about two pieces of property and getting figures on them. I agree with that, but I'm agreeing with it kind of jaundiced because I'm a little prejudiced, because if you put the two of them together it leaves room for another motion. That won't happen, but I hope this will be considered in the move that we're going to make because it's going to cost money. We've seen a lot written recently in reference to security, and particularly as it surrounds the court systems. Now, I may be off base when I look at the square footage of what we're talking about on Damascus Road in reference to the parking, but if I can play with your mind just a little bit, if you take the Georgia Capitol, if you take the Sloppy Floyd building, if you take the parking deck that's behind the Georgia Capitol, on one of the busiest streets in America, Martin Luther King Drive in Atlanta, you've got an overhead crossing that basically you can walk from the Sloppy Floyd building to the back of the Capitol and then over into the other parking deck that drops you off at the Archives. Now, what I'm getting to is the fact that have we not-- we've been so busy about what we're going to do with the administrative buildings moving somewhere else. And I don't mind saying it, I'm an old city resident, I still live in the same place. My personal preference is for our Commission, its counsel, its Mayor's offices, quite frankly, to remain in the historic building that it's in. Have we not explored the idea of looking at the Damascus Road property from the standpoint of looking at what was done in Lawrenceville in Gwinnett County, and instead of looking at the administrative building maybe being built, look at the judicial complex that would house all of the courts with the exception of what will remain at the jail? And I know where we get the laugh there, because we say, well, you know, we're going to hear a cry from the judges. Page 40 But I think it goes a little further than that. We've got to house--we've got to get the District Attorney out of the blue goose across the street here, we've got to build enough court space, and we're adding on judges a mile a minute. If we've got property on both sides of Damascus Road, why can't we then build a new judicial complex, or at least look at doing that, on the property that we own on Damascus Road? It doesn't take us out of a central area, period. We can build a parking deck on Damascus Road that can go one, two, three, four stories, whatever the engineering will support. You are the government, you can create the overhead capability on Damascus Road to walk across that deck area from one side of the street to the other one. That eliminates the elementary problem of crossing the street because you never get on the street. You do the same thing you do there in your Georgia Capitol and you go across on an overhead basis and you park on the deck. That would give you the parking that you're going to need with a growing aquatics center, you've got your judicial complex in there at the same time, and this building then with employees that are not constitutional officers. And not knocking the constitutional ones, but it gives us a better flexibility of being able to work with those employees if they had most of this building to deal with and for us, Mr. Mayor, to deal with, then we can stay where we basically are. And the only thing I'm saying is, and kind of supporting Richard, of looking at what those numbers might be to deal with that judicial complex, state of the art, the security that's there, and really, I think, it would be worthwhile for that committee to look at at least taking that ride to Gwinnett and looking at that complex that's been built there. It's not humongous, but Gwinnett County is bigger than Richmond County. In fact, they've got every court that they've got there under one roof. You go in to almost a six to seven door complex. You can enter it from two sides. It's got the parking there. That's the one advantage they've got, but we still don't have to cross the street. We can deck park it, we can light it up, and we can go across whether it's enclosed, tunnel, or whether it's straight walkway. We have the right there to basically zone it like we want to and do the overhead. And that's just a suggestion before we get caught up in the territorial... (END OF TAPE 1) MR. MAYS: ...Now, I know the argument is going to come, I know, from the legal community that, well, they can't cross the street no more because the library is not as close. Well, you know, somebody has got to be inconvenienced, you know, and everybody is not attorneys. So if you're going to build something somewhere, why not keep the traditional building where it is. You've got more departments than you've got in just dealing with courts of law, and look at putting everybody Page 41 under one roof that deals with law enforcement, with the exception of your Sheriff. You can have your Solicitor, you can have your D.A., and you can have every court with the exception of those that want to remain at 401 Walton Way. Build it big enough. They can design it. It can have marble, it can have glass, they can have everything they want to have in it. And put it up over there and build a five to six story ramp, walk them across the street, that solves your darn problem, and then let somebody else deal with both of them buildings where y'all won't have to be over here trading insults with each other. MR. OLIVER: I would note on one thing, Mr. Mays--and obviously creating a walk-over will work, but the cost of a parking deck is between $7,500 and $8,000 a space. And the economics of that, because ground is so inexpensive in that particular area, as a number of other areas, you can do surface parking for about $1,000 or $1,500 a space. So you're much better off with surface parking than you are with deck parking. MR. MAYS: I understand that, Mr. Oliver, but what I'm saying is we're getting into these old buildings, and I'm looking at some figures of millions of dollars that it's talking about to do either one of these. You know, we've got a lot of skilled prisoners. We've built a bunch of buildings. We've got some we built before most of y'all came here, and I think Mr. Brigham can attest to that. We've got some gymnasiums, we've got other buildings that have been built that we did a lot of creative building with that are still standing. They aren't vacant and we still use them. And I'm sure if we can deal with a building that folk have to go in and put 1,000 folk in, we ought to be able to build an open- air parking lot. And I'm just throwing that out to put it in the mix so that these aren't the only two things that we leave standing since we're going to look at megabucks and multi millions of dollars. I'm just a little old fashioned and prejudice, I hate to see the center of this government start talking about somewhere else to go. We set the policy, then, hell, let's move somebody else somewhere else, build something for them to go into, and we're still downtown. MAYOR YOUNG: All right, Mr. Mays, let's let Mr. Beard throw something in the mix. He's been waiting over here. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, my point would be, you know, I don't think we can second-guess the studies that have been made, and I think we've about studied this stuff for a year and we've been on this and on this and on this. I do think it is time to move on this, and I do support the idea of if we're going to look at something, then look at all three that have been presented to us and not just one. And, secondly, I think Page 42 that we've got to get over the territorial rights here. You know, we've got to think in terms of--government, to me, is kind of downtown. I think that's the heart and the center of your structure here. And I don't see anything wrong with looking at this from a perspective of you've got all of your facilities here. You've got your law enforcement office, you have this building here, and if we move to the Davison's building we're all in the same vicinity. It does not inconvenience a whole lot of people in that, and I think it's feasible that we do that. So I'm saying to my Commissioners here that we need to move forward on this one way or the other, but we need to move forward. We cannot continue to put this off and put this off and put this off. Yes, we paid $150,000 for this study, and I think it's time that we activate that study. And I think we've got to rise up and come to the bat and kind of put away locations, but let's look for the better thing for the entire city, and I think that better thing would be in the location downtown. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Shepard, do you want to come to the defense of the lawyers here? MR. SHEPARD: Absolutely. MR. OLIVER: The cost of that study was less than $100,000, so we don't get the wrong number in the paper. It was right around-- MR. BEARD: It was 95. MR. POWELL: There's been a lot of distorted facts throughout the process, so-- MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I thought I had the floor here. Between Mr. Oliver and Mr. Powell I can't get a word in edge- wise. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard has the floor. MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. But, Mr. Mayor, I think that if you take a walk up and down Greene Street you'll find that the last service community of businesses that is centered in this area is the legal community. A substantial amount of private investment has been made in this area by lawyers, and with the anticipation, quite frankly, that they would walk to court. Just like your doctors are located adjacent to the hospital, they can get there to the operating rooms, the lawyers, quite frankly, as I do, walk here to court: Probate Court, Superior Court, Civil Court, just to name three. And I think that if you move the complexes out of the downtown area, the legal community will follow it. And part of the legal community has already relocated, and where they've relocated, Page 43 in part, is Columbia County, and you're not going to have these same lawyers stay downtown. There are two main reasons that trial lawyers stay in the downtown area, and that's the courts located at the Joint Law Enforcement Center, which would be Juvenile Court and State Court, and the courts located in this building. So you have had a lot of private economic invest-ment decisions made by lawyers, I think we should honor those decisions. And my other point as far as if we want to build a parking deck, well, Mr. Mays, I'll take you back. You always like to take us back to the days of the City Council, and, of course, you and I and Lee can go back there. But before perhaps Lee and I sat on there, it was during the Newman administration that a great parking deck was constructed at the corner of Greene Street and Laney-Walker Boulevard. It sits directly behind the Macy's/Davison's site, and most days it stands empty. So we don't need to build a new parking deck, we've got one which can be, in this plan, reused with little cost to the taxpayer. Because the taxpayers have already paid for that building and we should use it. So, Mr. Mayor, I again commend the downtown site. And I never had from my fiscal conservative friends an explanation of how the Regency Mall is going to overcome its high operational costs due to large volume of floor space ratio, so I think if you want to vote yourself a tax increase, you can vote for the mall. Thank you. MR. HANDY: I just want to make two statements. One statement is what Mr. Kuhlke asked about combining both buildings as far as someone looking at them. The same brokerage person is handling both buildings, so that wouldn't be a problem. The same man handling Davison's is handling the mall far as trying to sell it or rent it, whatever you're going to do with it, so that won't be a problem. But also something Ulmer said earlier, as well as--well, I think I heard it someplace else. There was an issue that came before us a few weeks ago that I care not to discuss, but it's a part of what I'm about to say. We are no longer Augusta down here now, we're consolidated. And some things that we voted on a couple of weeks, we were still thinking Augusta was downtown and that's all. But Augusta is from Burke County to Columbia County to Aiken County. That's the line, that's Augusta. And what Mr. Beard said about everything should be centered downtown, well, the mall is downtown now, so we're going to have to change the boundaries. The boundaries have not been changed. We are consolidated, but we're still using Laney- Walker is the center of downtown, and from Turpin Hill to the river, that's downtown. But that's no longer downtown, so we all need to change our attitudes or our theory about what's downtown and what's not downtown if we want to represent all of the people. Because if we're asking the people to vote for us and we represent the entire Richmond County, then we just Page 44 can't look at from Turpin Street to the river as downtown, we've got to look at from the county line. And I would just like to throw that in there because all of this is Augusta now, it's no longer the little small place down here we used to call Augusta. Everything is Augusta now, so we're going to have to change--we're going to have to change. We are Augusta. Everywhere we go, everything is Augusta. MR. POWELL: I would just like to address some of Mr. Shepard's concerns that the lawyers in Augusta have made some significant investments down here for office space, and I'll agree with that. They've also made significant investments in automobiles to come and go from Columbia County where 95 percent of them live. Now, the people in Richmond County, 52 percent of the population of Richmond County live south of the Gordon Highway. The mall is in the center of the county. If you want to do the study, do the facts, do whatever you want to do, look at your voting registrations, that'll tell you where the people are at. We want to support downtown wholeheartedly, but, gentlemen, you cannot put all your eggs in one basket. And we're catering to a very, very small group of people when you've got a mass of people that do not live downtown that are inconvenienced by coming down and taking care of government business. To address the study, the study addressed two--it addressed everything apples to oranges. When we talked about Regency Mall, it talked about taking the judicial system out there. When we talked about the Davison's building, it made no mention of it. I mean I can shoot holes all in your study. I think if you're going to do a study, put your apples-for- apples study down and let's see which one is the best. But if you've got a real, real concern with what to do and what's right, put it on the ballot and let the people tell you what they want to do. I can live with that. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to reiterate the commitment that this Commission made to Greater Augusta Progress in the amount of $250,000, and $100,000 of that money is being used to evaluate really what's the best use of Regency Mall. We all know Regency Mall has gone downhill quite rapidly in the last few years. But one thing is for sure, I was President of the Chamber of Commerce in 1978 when two malls, two million-square-foot malls opened up, and I unfortunately had the chance to see downtown dry up in a matter of six to eight months. You take--and I think that there is some value in this. There probably was a better place to put the health department, but there were other good reasons to put the health department where they were, social, economic, and so forth. I think for an exodus of downtown of the government complex when the probability or availability of us staying here and continue what's already been happening downtown, to continue the revitalization of downtown is very, Page 45 very important for this community. If I knew for sure that going to Regency Mall was going to totally revitalize Regency Mall, I may have a different opinion. Regency Mall is going down, Broad Street is going up. We can help that progress to continue if we stay down in this area, and I think it's really valuable for Augusta--and you call it Augusta--for us to have a viable downtown. We've got a great riverfront, we've got Fort Discovery, the Golf Hall of Fame, Springfield, a tremendous amount of work that's going to happen on Laney-Walker. These are things that are going to happen in this community, and I think that the government complexes should be down in this area. MR. BEARD: I just want to say one more thing. Mr. Mayor, you know, we keep harping on where the people are located and the percentage of people. It's not a matter of taking the government to the people. You know, yes, I agree we live in Richmond--we live in Augusta. That's from wherever the boundaries are, we live in Augusta. But I think the important thing here is not territorial, but what it's going to do to your downtown. If you move from down here, even to Regency Mall, which it may be the center of the county, but what is it going to do to something that we have tried to build up for years, our city, our downtown? In every place you have a downtown, and everybody tries to build up downtown. Everywhere I've gone, it's a matter of concentrating downtown. And the rest of it will take care of itself, even Regency Mall. I think we're going to have something out there that will take care of Regency Mall. And all I can hear is that we need to do something about Regency Mall so that we get some people in there, but I think to move the government in there is the wrong way to approach this. MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair would like to ask Mr. Oliver a question. You've asked the department heads to prepare budget options that include taking into account the management study. And if those budget options that take into account the management study are approved by this Commission, will we have a need for space that we have now that is driving this discussion for these two locations? MR. OLIVER: No, it won't appreciably change your space needs at all. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, first off I want to request a roll call vote on this item. Second off, I've heard nothing new today that I have not heard in the last two years of debate. I think we ought to be ready to vote and I'll call the question. MAYOR YOUNG: All right, the question has been called. That ends the debate. Page 46 MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, a clarification. Did either one of the makers of the motion accept--did Mr. Kuhkle--did you amend to accept what's in the other motion or are we voting to do one piece of property versus the other one? MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, the question on the floor now is the Davison's option. MR. MAYS: By itself? MAYOR YOUNG: By itself. CLERK: Enter into negotiations for the Davison's and Green buildings. That's the substitute motion. MR. MAYS: And we have no plans to make them compete against each other? MAYOR YOUNG: No, sir, that's not the motion on the floor. The question has been called, so the debate is over and we move ahead. And a roll call vote has been requested, so, Madame Clerk, if you'll call the roll. MR. BEARD: I just need to hear the motion to make sure I know what-- CLERK: The substitute motion on Item 36, selection of a location for administrative offices for Augusta-Richmond County, motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Shepard, was to enter into negotiation for the Davison's and Green buildings. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Colclough? MR. COLCLOUGH: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? Page 47 MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: Yes. MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. MAYS VOTES PRESENT. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. That takes us back to the original motion. CLERK: The original motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell, was to enter into negotiation for the Belk building. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. We didn't have a request for a roll call vote on that, so-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I will request a roll call vote. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a request for a roll call vote. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. H. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. J. Brigham? Page 48 MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Colclough? MR. COLCLOUGH: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD: No. MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS VOTES PRESENT. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We'll take the order of the day, Madame Clerk. CLERK: Item 37: Approve contract with OMI, Inc. for contract operations of Augusta-Richmond County's Waste Water Treatment Plants for a five (5) year term, at a first year annual cost of $5,996,113 with a five (5) year renewal option. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second to approve the contract with OMI. Any discussion? MR. KUHLKE: I have some. I'd like to ask Mr. Oliver, in looking at the proposed budget--this is appendix K, page 31. The annualized cost on the left-hand side, is that what it actually costs us per year? MR. OLIVER: No, that's the contract for a 12-month period. Page 49 MR. KUHLKE: How much does it cost us per year? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wiedmeier has those figures. MR. WIEDMEIER: Mr. Kuhlke, I don't have the plant's operating budget with me, but these figures are very similar to what it's costing us to operate right now. MR. KUHLKE: Why don't we know how much it costs us? MR. WIEDMEIER: We do, I just didn't bring that with me. And there are elements to the treatment plant's budget that aren't included here. For instance, we're going to maintain the lift stations, maintenance of the lift stations in the Utilities Department rather than that going with the treatment plant. Where the savings in this, if this contract is approved, will occur is the reduced cost for sludge disposal. They're contractually obligated to deliver sludge at a certain consistency. It's going to save significant money. MR. OLIVER: We have those figures. I have them in my office, Commissioner Kuhlke, and they're comparable to these figures. We don't see--except for the component Mr. Wiedmeier mentioned, we see the sludge hauling as being one that there will potentially be some savings in the short-term, but we don't see, you know, a significant difference in the cost. The difference between the two columns is the annualized is a 12-month period. The first year of this contract represents about 17 months, so we wanted to show it that way. MR. KUHLKE: I understand that, I just feel--we're about where we are? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And let me ask you this question, Mr. Oliver, because I looked the contract, but obviously I don't know everything about it. Do you feel comfortable with this contract? Do you sleep good at night after you read this? MR. OLIVER: We worked very long and hard on this particular contract to try to get it the best that we can. One of the things, you know, since we have not entered into this type contract before, that we wanted to make sure of is that there is an out provision, and there is an out provision in this contract. It would cost $100,000 to get out of it, but you can terminate it for convenience, you know, if the operations are not what we believe it should be, without any cause or anything like that. And I'm comfortable with the contract based upon the direction that the Commission gave for the negotiations. Page 50 MR. KUHLKE: And who developed the contract? MR. OLIVER: The contract was a collaborative effort between myself, Mr. Wall, and OMI personnel. Obviously Mr. Wiedmeier was involved. But we got, as part of the proposal process, contracts from some six/eight firms. We took the parts from those six/eight firms that we liked, various components, and we merged those into this contract. And there was a lot of discussion back and forth as it related to the provisions. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Oliver, the contract says that OMI will hire the employees who are out there now, and there's a list of those employees. At such as this contract may be terminated, what is the status of those employees who have left us and gone to OMI? Do they have any job guarantee to come back with us and be reinstated with their benefits? MR. OLIVER: No, sir, they do not. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, in regards to cost, in the first place, basically what you're saying is it's going to cost us the same thing it does to operate now? MR. OLIVER: Except for the sludge component. And there are a couple of incentives in this contract. One is if they cut the chemical cost, cut the electrical cost, or cut the sludge cost, that there are incentives where we benefit by 88 percent of the savings. They get 12 percent of the savings. And we wanted that in the contract so that there is some incentive for them to do it. MR. BRIDGES: We make any capital improvements; is that right? MR. OLIVER: No. There's a capital account in here of $500,000, I mean, because you're going to have to make some capital changes, and there are some things that we think are going to need to be made. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Now, what about liability as far as environmental concerns, EPA or anything like that, if we approve this contract? MR. OLIVER: Up to $500,000 in fines are theirs, if you will, barring it being an act of God or something of that nature which would be beyond their control. MAYOR YOUNG: What about legal fees, do they pay those, too? Page 51 MR. OLIVER: I wish Mr. Wall was here for that part of it. On the legal fees, I cannot answer off the top of my head. MR. BRIDGES: But my concern is that if we have some-- you know, EPD comes down and starts fining us $10,000 a day. Once we've agreed to this contract, at what point--in other words, is something in the contract that says, okay, from this point on the liability will be OMI? MR. OLIVER: No. You have to remember that we're under a consent decree, and based upon being within those operating parameters, we don't have any fines and things like that that accrue now. So they have to make--we have certain things that we have to do under this contract, they have certain things they have to do under this contract, and Mr. Wiedmeier can give us the exact dates if you'd like those dates for compliance. If they have a sewer overflow, you know, two weeks down the road, that's their problem. Unless it was an act of God or something of that nature-- MR. BRIDGES: That's what I'm asking. Okay, so from the point of the contract on, we're out of that environmental liability in that regard up to 500,000? MR. OLIVER: Up to the 500,000 unless it was something that's just totally beyond their control: tornado, hurricane, whatever. MAYOR YOUNG: Well, that's on the penalty, though. I'd like to hear on the legal fees. MR. OLIVER: Well, on the legal fees--and Mr. Wall would have to answer this better. If they're on the hook for the 500,000, I would think that they're going to be in there defending that pretty hard and heavy for their 500 or we would agree pretty quickly to the--whatever the fine may be. But I can't specifically answer on the legal aspect of it. Now, obviously if there's a lawsuit, chances are, as a number of you know, everybody usually gets sued using the shotgun technique. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, following up your question on the legal fees, and I understand Mr. Wall is not here, but I also noticed in this agenda item that it's bypassed the usual committee system. And we usually have a deliberative process in the committee system, which at least helps me, speaking personally, to think about things between the time the committees act on it and we bring it up for final approval. And whatever happens today, I don't think we want to force Ms. Little into speculating about what--or Randy either-- speculating about what the consequences of this contract mean Page 52 in terms of litigation expenses in the future. And so I'd make a substitute motion at this time that we refer this to the Engineering Services Committee, that we get the answers that are being raised in the discussion today, and then--and Engineering Services meets next week--and then depending on its action, we'll then have it back at the first meeting in August. So I'd make that in the form of a substitute motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Continuing our discussion, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm just interested in the employees, and I need to go back over that again. They will be employed for what--would you explain that for the record? MR. OLIVER: The contract term is an initial term of slightly greater than five years, with a five-year renewal at the option of the parties involved. It would take both parties to agree to renew. MR. BEARD: What happens to our pension plan that they're under? MR. OLIVER: The sections that relate to the employees are sections 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14 essentially, and the list says--I believe Commissioner Shepard said the 36 employees that are currently out there, that they will be offered employment. It says that each current employee will be provided a wage equivalent or greater than the wage they received as of the last day with Augusta-Richmond County. It says that they will continue to be employed as long as they continue to perform their assigned duties in a satisfactory manner and their assigned duties are necessary for the performance of the scope of services under this agreement. It also goes on to say that OMI will not involuntarily transfer any employee outside the Augusta area obviously without their permission. Then it goes on to say in 2.14, provide a benefits and insurance package equal to or greater than the benefits and insurance package enjoyed by each current employee on the effective date of this agreement. Any insurance--because we knew this was a concern of Mr. Mays, and he had mentioned it before and I think it's a valid concern. Any health insurance program provided by OMI shall not contain an exclusion clause for pre-existing conditions for current employees. And then it goes on to further provide for the transfer and accrual of vacation and sick leave, up to a maximum of 173 hours on the sick. MR. BEARD: So the pension plan that they are under at the present-- Page 53 MR. OLIVER: Their job would be treated as if it was eliminated for pension plan purposes, that's correct. And they would then go under OMI's pension plan, which contractually they have committed that their benefits and insurance package will be equal or greater than the benefits and insurance package enjoyed currently. MR. HANDY: What about 2.18, Randy? MR. OLIVER: Well, what 2.18 effectively says, that if they give someone a physical, for example, and the doctor says that they can't physically perform that job, then it wouldn't be safe for them to be employed and they would, you know, take appropriate action from there. MR. HANDY: Yeah, but right now they are safely employed and they're working for us. I'm just saying--I don't know whether anybody's sick or not. MR. OLIVER: I understand what you're saying. But if we sent them out to a doctor because we suspected they had a medical problem that they could, you know, pass out and fall into the plant, okay, then we would be in the same position they would because we would have to take them off, you know, of active service because it wouldn't be a safe condition for them or for the public as a whole. MR. HANDY: I understand that, but I'm not saying that. But I'm also saying that we will not give them a physical now because they're already employed with us. But going with a new employer, they all got to take a physical. MR. OLIVER: They all have to take physicals. But if we have reasonable cause, we would. MR. HANDY: No, I'm not talking about reasonable cause, I'm talking about as they work right today. We didn't give anybody a physical this morning, so if anything happened, we don't know. So what we're saying now, if we give these people over to OMI, they're going to have to give a physical to everyone now. And so suppose something happened or something there we don't know about comes up with this physical-- MAYOR YOUNG: You're saying each employee who is with the city now would have to take a pre-employment physical with OMI; is that what you're saying? MR. OLIVER: That's what the contract provides for. MR. WIEDMEIER: But my understanding is, regardless of the results of that physical, that would not be cause for Page 54 termination. MR. OLIVER: It says in there OMI will make reasonable accommodation for current employees. In other words, you know, it isn't saying that they can have that same job, but it's saying that they're going to try to accommodate them. And I think that's as reasonable as you can be, frankly. MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, the contract here is something that I've looked over and I feel comfortable with it coming from the committee that initially chose this company. But I want to tell you one thing, that I had an encounter with a gentleman last weekend and I noticed he had an OMI hat on up in one of our sister counties. So I asked him about where he got the hat, and he told me that his brother was with the Washington County wastewater treatment facilities and had been there at a low-scale job for quite some time. When Washington, Georgia, agreed to privatize, they chose OMI as their company. After the privatization took place, as I inquired to the gentleman about the treatment of the employees and thus far how things went, he told me that OMI came in and offered his brother the training that he had never been afforded before, got him certified, and now instead of being in a low-end job, he's over in Warrenton running the waste- water treatment plant. He's doubled his salary, he's doubled his benefits, all because this company came in and offered training, which is something that we have not done. We may have done a little bit of training, but we haven't done anything like what our employees are going to see. The gentlemen are going to come in, afford the employees an opportunity to advance, and this has been done throughout the country. And this situation that I ran into the gentleman on was not staged, it was just something that happened. And I want you to know that I have confidence in OMI as far as our employees are concerned or I'd hit that red button when it came up. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor that would send this back to the committee, so we'll call the question on the substitute motion. All in favor of sending this back to the Engineering Services Committee, please vote aye. MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS, MR. POWELL & MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO. MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION FAILS 6-3. MAYOR YOUNG: That brings us back to the original motion. The motion is to approve the contract with OMI as stated in the agenda item. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye. Page 55 MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. MAYOR YOUNG: Next item of business, Madame Clerk? CLERK: Executive session. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. COLCLOUGH: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second on the floor to go into executive session. All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. (EXECUTIVE SESSION) MAYOR YOUNG: The first item of business is we'll need a motion authorizing the Chairman to sign the closed meeting affidavit. MR. SHEPARD: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. COLCLOUGH: I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. MAYOR YOUNG: This is the motion to approve me signing the affidavit for the closed meeting. We need to add it to the agenda first, so that's what we're doing. MR. SHEPARD: I amend my motion to that effect. CLERK: To add and approve? MR. SHEPARD: Add and approve, yes, ma'am. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Let's see, we go back to Item 15. Do we have a motion with respect to Item 15? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move we exercise option two. MR. BEARD: I second. Page 56 MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second to exercise option two. Is there any discussion? MR. POWELL: Yes, a clarification of option two. MR. OLIVER: Option two moves one employee to 10 percent over the minimum and the other employee to mid point. MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve option two, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Is there any other business to come before the Commission? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to think about it a little while longer, a motion to reconsider the addendum two items. I think we really need to do those two items. MR. SHEPARD: I'd make a motion to reconsider those two items. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: I can't find those two items. Madame Clerk's got them, don't you? MR. HANDY: Those two items is a road for the Dollar store and a lift station. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So we have unanimous consent to add those, so those two items are added back to the agenda. Do you want to take those together? MR. HANDY: Yes. And I'd like to make a motion to approve them. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the two items. And people are voting already, so go ahead and vote. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: I'd also like to make a motion to adjourn. MAYOR YOUNG: A motion to adjourn, which takes precedence. All opposed can hang around. Page 57 (MEETING ADJOURNED) 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 Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on July 20, 1999. ________________________________ Clerk of Commission