Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS September 7, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, September 7, 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 Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND LOCKHART. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Clerk: We have a request by the attorney to add one lease agreement between the Augusta Commission and Charles Thompson of the state of Georgia. Mr. Handy: So move Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Any objection? Mr. Shepard: What’s it about, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: This is on the property that’s part of the Big Farm and this would carry the lease through 12/31 of this year. Mayor Young: Any objection? None, heard, so we have unanimous consent to add it to the agenda. MR. BRIDGES OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Clerk: And a delegation, we have the Shepeard Community Blood Center, Ms. Rebecca Gaylor. Presentation of plaque. Dr. Dube: Rebecca Gaylor has asked me to appear here instead of her. She’s sitting right over there. I’m Dr. Dube. I’m the director of Shepeard Blood Center. Mayor Young, Richmond County Commissioners, it’s my pleasure to appear before you upon what I think is a non-controversial Page 2 issue. This has to do with giving blood. In August we had a combined blood drive between the Richmond County Fire Department and the Sheriff’s Department. It was titled “The Battle of the Badges” and I understand this is a very appropriate title. The two departments have a long-standing competition going on in basketball and various kinds of sports activities. It was only natural to extend that into giving blood. It sort of expresses the fact that these two departments, the Fire Department and the Police Department, not only provide very essential services to this community, but they also are very involved in making sure the blood needs of patients in these communities are met, and we feel this is really the finest, one of the finest gifts and contributions that they can make for someone who is really in need. And the idea was who was going to be winner, naturally there can be only one winner. This was the first of this kind of events which took place, and it is supposed to be a yearly event, and I’m here to honor Mr. Leon Garvin with this plaque. His department won this competition and, as you see, this is the first entry on this plaque here, for this year. We’ll have to see who the winners are in subsequent years. So the challenge is out and Mr. Garvin, Lt. Garvin, my heartfelt thanks and congratulations and I offer you this plaque on behalf of the community and the Shepeard Blood Center. Thank you very much. (A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN) Lt. Garvin: We accept this award and we look forward to it being an annual competitive event. Mayor Young: Thank you very much, Doctor, and congratulations to all the deputies and the fire personnel who contributed to the blood drive. Participation was appreciated. Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Bridges indicated to me that he may be a little late for today’s meeting, if he will be able to make it at all. He'd be running late. The Metro Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Scott MacGregor, Air Quality Taskforce. Mayor Young: Gentlemen, you have a copy of the resolution in your packet, as well as the supporting information that Mr. MacGregor will talk to us about. Scott, go ahead. Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I appreciate Page 3 your allowing me to appear before you on a very important topic to out community, which is air quality. As y’all are probably all very well aware, the Augusta community is trending towards non-compliance under new federal air quality regulations. Seeing the potential damages that these regulations and non-compliance could cause, the Chamber of Commerce created an Air Quality Taskforce. The members of this taskforce include your own Randy Oliver and George Patty, as well as industry leaders and other community leaders. We quickly discovered that the Augusta community was lacking the most important thing to make decisions about air quality, which is good information. This information is really due to us from the state of Georgia, but due to the Atlanta situation, they are unable to provide it because there are limited resources. Therefore, we made the decision to pursue these resources by going after our line item in the State budget. And in order to increase our chances of getting this successfully taken care of, we teamed up with our fellow fall- line cities of Columbus and Macon. And what you see before you is a memorandum of understanding about that organization, where we will take funds that are received from the State through the budget process and split them up between the three cities and have our air quality study by Georgia Tech, which is a national leader in this area. And I am here seeking your support of this effort today, and I’d love to answer any questions and talk about any concerns you have. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Oliver, would you like to speak to this? Mr. Oliver: One of the things that became abundantly clear as this Air Quality Taskforce moved forward was that there was insufficient data for Augusta, as Mr. MacGregor indicated. The focus by the State, and probably rightfully so, has been on Atlanta; however, we believe that Atlanta’s problems and Augusta’s problems are far different in that we don’t have the vehicular congestion that Atlanta does. However, we have a denser population, if you will, of industry. We believe that there needs to be a technical resource that’s going to come in and identify, number one, if we have a problem, because there’s been some discussion that there is only one ozone monitor, and particular, monitor in this area, and there’s some question as it relates to the location. And if the installation of those additional monitors show that there are additional areas for concern, how we would go about addressing them, because we believe that the Page 4 way we address them would be quite different than Atlanta. Again, if in Augusta while some people may feel there is a traffic problem, if you have wait two traffic lights, you’ve waited a long time. So we believe the solution is different. Mr. MacGregor, on behalf of this committee and the Chamber, banded together with Savannah, Macon and Augusta and had some discussions with the respective delegations for all three areas about possibly getting funding from the State to do this type of study, and the study would address the things that I’ve discussed, and we believe that this is something that would be beneficial. However, we believe that this is the State’s responsibility to fund, because under law, it’s the State’s responsibility to delineate the problem and also the State is the only one with the authority to come in and say okay, industry, you need to use the best available technology and we believe you need to cut your emissions by, say, 20 percent or whatever number they come up with. So at this point, I think all we’re asking for is an endorsement of the concept and to request that the State fund this proposal to do what should really be done by EPD, but we also recognize that they have a pretty full plate in the things that they’re doing and they have been an integral part of the process and they are in agreement with the approach as I understand it. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please so signify. MR. BRIDGES OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mr. MacGregor: Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Scott, for the Chamber and the Air Quality Taskforce for taking the leadership position in this. Clerk: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 52. Mayor Young: We had a request from Mr. Daniel Harrington to be allowed to speak to Item 28. Mr. Oliver: Mr. Harrington has indicated that he is working closely with the developer and the he will speak on that at a future meeting, if they cannot resolve the Page 5 differences. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: I would like clarification on 31 and 32. I’d like to have those clarified. Mayor Young: 31 and 32. You want to pull those? Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Okay. Are there any other items that— Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: I’d ask No. 5 be pulled. Mayor Young: Ms. Bonner, would you like to go through the alcohol licenses? Clerk: Yes, sir. For the benefit of any objectors to the liquor application petitions, if there are any objectors, would you indicate that by the raising of your hand. I will read the location and the request for the petition. FINANCE 1. Motion to award a purchase order for the August Richmond Marshal’s Department at Sidney’s. 2. Motion to approve rejecting all bids for the purpose of auctioning excess county vehicles equipment. 3. Motion to approve modification to lease with the Augusta GreenJackets, subject to the approval of Attorney and Administrator, to permit GreenJackets to pave parking lot at Lake Olmstead Stadium at their expense (capital and operating) charging a fee not to exceed $1.00 per game adjusted for inflation. 4. Motion to authorize Fleet Management to sell one (1) excess Police vehicle to the Jefferson County Marshal’s Department for $3,000. 5. Pulled from consent agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE: 6. Motion to approved allocation of the CDGB funds to Page 6 Antioch Ministries, Inc. for administrative and demolition/clearance for Phase II of the Florence Street Project. 7. Motion to approve the Year 200 - 2004 Proposed Consolidated Plan and Year 2000 Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds. 8. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1721 Luckey Street (District 2, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 2032 Willow Street (District 2, Super District 9); Old Town Neighborhood: 515 Sibley Street (District 1, Super District 9); Central Business District: 717 Seventh Street, 545 Walton Way (District 1, Super District 9); South Richmond Neighborhood: 3508 waive Barker Drive (District 6, Super District 10); and nd 2 reading. 9. Motion to approve $50,000 Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant Loan for Mr. Donnie Shavers d/b/a Laney Walker Bed and Bath as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Council on January 8, 1999. 10. Consent to signing of construction contract with Balls’ Enterprise in the amount of $342,927 regarding improvements to the Shiloh Community Center. (Funded with Community Development Block Grant Funds.) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 11. Motion to accept counteroffer option in the amount of $2,815.00 to purchase 0.035 acre of permanent easement and 0.010 sq. ft. of temporary easement (Tax Map 24-2, Parcel 21) of the Rae’s Creek Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project which is owned by Jean Morgot Schedel. 12. Motion to approve acceptance of the payment plan form Alternate Energy with agreement that they will reduce its outstanding debt to the City of Augusta to $52,000 by September 30 (and keeping all bills current) for its water account or account will be cut off after which Alternate Energy will come back for a review of the remaining balance before Engineering Services Committee the first meeting in October. 13. Motion to approve the deed for transfer of three (3) properties to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 14. Motion to approve the deed for transfer or a parcel on Alabama Road to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 15. Motion to approve the deed for transfer of 1917 Alabama Page 7 Road to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 16. Motion to approve the deed for transfer of 1921 Alabama Road to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. 17. Motion to approve the temporary closing of Saybrook Drive from 1605 Saybrook Drive to the dead end. 18. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $8,210.00 to APAC-Georgia, Inc for additional work on the McCombs Road Improvements, Section 1 Project and Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Three (CPB #323-04- 296823905) to be funded by Augusta Utilities from Account Number 50704341-5425110/89600270-5425110. 19. Motion to approve acceptance of the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Asbury Hill, Section 1-B. 20. Motion to approve acceptance of the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Asbury Hill, Section 3-B. 21. Motion to approve authorizing the issuance of RFP for installation of Lightning Protection System at Phinizy Road Jail. 22. Motion to approve lease of three (3) parking spaces in the Greene Street Parking Deck at a rate of $15 per month per space for a period of thirteen (13) months with the period ending September 30, 2000 subject to approval of the City Attorney and Administrator to the U.S. Census Department. 23. Motion to approve low bid award to Beam’s Pavement Maintenance Co., who submitted a low bid of $104,651.00 regarding the Arthern Lane Sanitary Sewer Extension. Funded by Account #507043420-5425210/89900200-5425210. 24. Motion to authorize condemnation against Robert M. Freeman and Annie W. Freeman (Map 178, Parcel 67) of the Willis Foreman Road Drainage Improvement Project. 25. Motion to accept counterproposal from Alice Kirkland, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Hiram C. Kirkland, in the amount of $2,500.00 for the purchase of right-of-way containing 0.06 acres and 2,254.51 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement. (Tax Map 178, Parcel 1.2) 26. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget for Adjusting Roadway Structures, Phase V (CPB# 327-04-296812081) to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Program as identified in the Construction Work Program and authorize let to bed. Page 8 27. Motion to approve Resolution to abandon a portion of Indian Hills Drive being shown on Tax Map 198 as running between parcels 167 and 168, and on the Plat of Goshen Manor Section One as running between parcels 1 and 2 of Block A and connecting with Burning Tree Lane and convey same. 28. Motion to approve the delay of the issuance of a permit for construction of Bar Simms Road near Bill’s Dollar Store. 29. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $109,529.85 for the Inner City West Basin 1-B. 30. Motion to approve establishing street light district numbers and authorize execution of resolutions. ?? 289 Lumpkin Road ?? 212P Pepperidge Section 15 ?? 141F Quail Ridge ?? 288 Beverly Heights Drive & Brandall Drive ?? 252B Alden Drive and Alden Court PUBLIC SAFETY: 31. Pulled from consent agenda. 32. Pulled from consent agenda. 33. Motion to approve $8,000 for purchase of laptops for Traffic Engineering in order to satisfy Y2K compliance with software requirements. 34. Motion to approve $18,000 for a Computer-Aided-Dispatch Wrecker Rotation Module, approve replacing the current Mugshot Photo Imaging System with an integrated New World System at no additional cost, and approve $10,000 for additional end-user training. 35. Motion to approve the sale of two (2) surplus Fire Pumpers, Reserve Engine 3 and Reserve Engine 12 to another government entity for the sum of $37,000.00 36. Motion to approve the following additions to contract for new ROD system: ?? Make changes to ROD system to allow data conversion of instruments with alphanumeric books and/or pages. ?? Make change to ROD system to allow a select list of subdivisions for the Indexing/Proofing modules. ?? Make changes to ROD system to allow copying of previously entered parcel nomenclature to be copied to additional parcels being entered for Page 9 the same instrument transaction. ?? Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of “Return Mailing Labels.” ?? Make changes to ROD system to allow printing of all transfer and intangible tax charges on the cashier’s receipt. ?? Make changes to the ROD system to show summary reports of UCC activity. ?? Make changes to the ROD system so that a charge of $2.50 will be applied for the printing of a search results list from the public access stations. ?? Cost for all changes - $42,000.00 PUBLIC SERVICES: 37. Motion to approve Affidavit, Release and Assignment in favor of United Pacific Insurance Company of claims under its bond with J&G Construction Company in consideration of payment of $20,804.59. 38. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 2822 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. 39. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 4101 Windsor Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10. 40. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 3011 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. 41. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 3003 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. 42. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 3434 Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. 43. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in Page 10 connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 3477 Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. 44. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 1494 Jones Street. District 1. Super District 9. 45. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 3333 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. 46. Motion to approve a request by Joseph J. Duncan for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Panty, Inc. c/b/a The Depot located at 2549 Windsor Spring Road. District 4. Super District 9. 47. Motion to approve a request by Herbert Allen Josey III for a gameroom license to be used in connection with AJ’s Gameroom located at 2601 C Deans Bridge Road 48. Motion to approve promotional activities during Try Transit Week, September 18-18, 1999 49. Motion to approve the transfer of two trolleys to the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), pending final approval by Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and CVB acceptance of the cost of reimbursement to GDOT. 50. Motion to approve and award the color coating of tennis courts at Newman Tennis Center to Court Makers, Inc. in the amount of $21,900.00. 51. Motion to approve and award the prefabricated rubber sports floor at McDuffie Woods Community Center to Bonitz Flooring Group, Inc. in the amount of $59,667.00 PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 52. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held August 17, 1999. Clerk: Are there any objectors to those retail package beer and wine license applications? No objectors, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, except items 5, 31 and 32? Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Page 11 MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. Clerk: Item 5: Motion to approve in concept the selling of naming rights for Lake Olmstead Stadium. Mr. Oliver: Let me set the stage for it, and perhaps someone from the GreenJackets wants to talk about it. The GreenJackets approached the Mayor and myself about the possibility of doing this, and as a practical matter I talked with Mr. Williams at the Civic Center about this. He indicated that what was being proposed has been done at other places. It’s obviously a policy decision that the Mayor and Commission need to make, as to whether they want to commercialize a facility such as this with this approach. One of the things, though, we did not want to lock into at this point was any specific methodology for revenues and things like that. Mr. Williams and I, however, did discuss that and he gave me his thoughts and he felt that what was being proposed was somewhat in line. Again, as I say, it’s something brought to you all for concept. If you feel that that’s not something that you and the community are comfortable with, then I would encourage that we not proceed. If it’s something that you feel like it’s a way to increase revenue, then that’s something again we would pursue down that path. We just want to make sure that everybody was aware of what was going to be pursued before we actually spent the time and the effort or they spent the time and the effort to bring it back to you for consideration. Mayor Young: Chris Scheuer from the GreenJackets is here. Let’s hear it from him and then if y’all have any questions. Mr. Scheuer: Well, we felt that this was a situation that we could bring to the city. Obviously, like Mr. Oliver said, we didn’t want to do any work before there was an approval. What we felt was that we could increase our lease payments over a ten-year period totaling up to $340,000, increasing our lease payments. We felt that along with this, we could develop our parking lot for the facility, with no expense to the city or the taxpayers, that we would finance that ourselves, which could be utilized for other events as well as GreenJacket games, as well as some of the things and events that are going to go on at Lake Olmstead. We felt that this was an opportunity for us to be able to increase some revenue so we may keep our ticket prices affordable for families to come out to the ballpark. Our ticket prices have Page 12 remained the same for at least eight years, since we’ve been out there. The other thing that was very important to us is to ensure the stability of our franchise down the road so we can maintain our strong relationship with the city. We felt that this was something that most sport entities and arenas are going to now. The only difference is this is an existing facility. But the end results would be the same. We feel that in the minor league at our Class A level, it’s being done. Myrtle Beach, Piedmont, Delmarva, who is in our league, a lot of these cities have gone to this and sports people and GreenJackets fans are used to the corporate tags. Just about everything at the ballpark has a corporate tag, whether it be the Saturn of Augusta guest services center or the WJBF family section. These are things that our fans and the community are used to. So we felt that it was a good, strong proposal, and more importantly, that we would actually be giving back more to the city down the road. So if there are any specific questions, and I did want to add that I think we discussed that final approval of a corporation would also come back to the Commission as well. So we did discuss that as well, and we did talk about capping some parking charges out there as well, so if there’s any questions I’d be glad to answer them. Mayor Young: This is strictly about the stadium? Mr. Oliver: This is in two separate pieces. One was the parking, which is on the consent agenda. Mayor Young: The parking has already been approved. Mr. Oliver: And the second issue, because I didn’t see the need to present both issues together, was the stadium naming aspect. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, what I’m interested in is knowing where the concept end and the agreement begin, if it begins here. I notice this seems to be between us and GreenJackets, and that seems to be the only thing that’s settled in this proposal here. But what about the issues of the size of the sign, the use of the logo? There’s been a lot of criticism that the now Phillips Arena in Atlanta, that the sign that the council up there permitted was not in the best of taste, perhaps. I think we want--where does the control for those type issues go, Mr. Scheuer? Mr. Scheuer: Well, in my, in our discussions, we felt it was very important to get the concept approved before we got Page 13 into an awful lot of details like that, but in my opinion and the GreenJackets organization’s opinion, yes, obviously there would have to be agreements on certain parts of the proposal made to the corporation. I think that you folks would have final approval on a name change, a specific name change. You would have final approval over what corporation we could go to and discuss this with, but then when it got to the components of the proposal to the corporation and what they will be receiving, we would bring it back and basically resubmit a proposal. But I think right now what we’re trying to do is get permission on the concept before we move ahead with anything else. Mr. Shepard: But does the concept include--are we binding ourselves--maybe I should ask Jim. Are we binding ourselves by this outline format that’s in our book? Mr. Oliver: It’s our intent to be able to bring it back to you all, and if for whatever reason you don’t like it, that you can turn it down at that point, for whatever reason. Because clearly we’ve indicated to them that there’s some sponsors that we believe would be inappropriate. But the intent here is to just get the concept and the chemistry, if you will, is going to have to be right as it relates to who the sponsor is, what the financial aspects of the deal is, what are the sizes of the signs and things like that, what’s going to be involved, because they’ve got some issues form their standpoint because once they have a sponsor in this vein, they won’t be able to use certain other sponsors potentially. And the GreenJackets have some issues that we discussed. They’re also going to have to work with them. Mr. Wall: And it would require specific contract authorizing them to do that, so it would have to be brought back to you. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MR. BRIDGES OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Clerk: Item 31: Motion to approve $95,000 for the cost Page 14 of additional training and related travel expenses and necessary software modifications to support the Bi-Tech IFAS Software. Item 32: Motion to approve $59,000 for the cost of additional Bi-Tech IFAS Software licenses and third party software. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I’m a little concerned here, and especially with Item 31 here, look like I’ve seen this before, a few months ago. And I just want a clarification on this, and I see no outline in reference to the departments, no breakdown on Item 31. All they’re asking for is $95,000. And I would like to know maybe from the Clerk, maybe you’re the person to ask, or either Lyman, what amount is due to additional training on this? Can you break this down for me since you’re asking for this? Mr. Rushton: Yes, Tamika Allen was the project manager and Lyman, I guess it was for his group, but on the additional training, half of this that we’re looking at was for additional training. Mr. Beard: Why was the additional training necessary? Mr. Rushton: I just might say, to clarify something. Approximately $45,000 of the $95,000 was for travel which was not included in the initial contract. The additional $50,000 was for training. We had some delays in training. We had some implementation problems and it really cut across both the payroll, purchasing, general ledger systems and these are the additional items that were inferred. I think Tomika can speak better to the training than I can. Mr. Beard: Was the training from your department, was that because of on your part or on the part of the persons who were doing the training or what reason? I guess that’s what I’m trying to get to. Mr. Rushton: I don’t think it was really necessarily on the part of the people that were doing the training themselves from the software vendor. What happened on several occasions is we had people who were in to do training, we had various related problems and the training could not be accomplished in the timeframe that was provided or allowed. Mr. Beard: Was there any shortcut in reference to this? Page 15 Is this the reason, because of that? Mr. Rushton: I don’t believe so, Commissioner. Mr. Beard: I do understand that your department did create a lot of retraining, and that was what I was interested in, why of all departments was your department interested in that. Mr. Rushton: I don’t think there was any retraining, Commissioner, there was just additional training that was required. There were a lot of things that were not dealt with in the initial contract and we needed to get in and get involved and get up to speed on it. Mr. Beard: So I’m assuming now that your budget is on line with everything done? Mr. Rushton: We believe so, yes, Commissioner. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Colclough: How much longer, how much more equipment, computer equipment--it seems like every month or every two months, we’re buying something for the Bi-Tech System. Mr. Rushton: I do not anticipate any additional training or any additional equipment other than normal budgeted expenditures for the Bi-Tech System. Mr. Colclough: Every three months since I’ve been here, I mean it’s $95,000 for Bi-Tech, $45,000 for this. When is our system going to be up and running where we can get it kind of together? Mr. Rushton: The Bi-Tech System is completely installed. Mr. Colclough: So we need $95,000 for training? Mr. Rushton: This is to finish the training. What we’re doing is not just allowing input to be done by an HR group or a payroll group or purchasing department. What we have done is allowed the users throughout the county to be able to enter their purchase requisitions, to enter their payroll, increase productivity, be able to inquire and look and things without phone calls. So we’ve done that. It’s completely implemented, and so this would close out Bi-Tech completely Page 16 right here. Mr. Colclough: So that means that every department in the county will get the training where they will be computer literate and they can enter all their data, even from the folks over on Marvin Griffin Road and everybody? Mr. Rushton: Yes. Mr. Colclough: And this will complete-- Mr. Rushton: This is the last Bi-Tech Software you’ll see. Mr. Oliver: With the exception of the small departments. I don’t want to mislead you in that regard. I mean the major departments are on. I think the purchasing aspect of this is working very well and we’re in the process--we phased in about 80 percent of the purchasing requisitions and those purchasing requisitions are now done electronically. They’re not done through a requisition process; however, some of the smaller departments such as Riverwalk Special Events is one person and bringing that in in light of the other issues we’re wrestling with at this point doesn’t make a lot of sense. I know the purchasing agent has an implementation schedule, and she’s in the next phase of that, if you will, cause we didn’t bring everything up at one time, and that was done intentionally to make sure that works. But I think we’re moving. As you know, about a month ago we just completed the upgrade to the new payroll system and there are still some issues that we’ve got to deal with in that, in that we’ve automated to deal with our year 2000 issues, but as Mr. Rushton’s indicated, there are some efficiency things we still need to do. For example, I want to integrate time clocks so that one somebody punches a time clock, for example, out in the field, that that goes right into our payroll system, rather than having to input that manually. That has not been done. Mr. Colclough: Let’s go back to my original question. Two things. He’s saying that every employee will be computer literate. Mr. Rushton: No, I did not say every employee. I said every department will be able to enter their requisitions. Mr. Colclough: So that means we’re still going to have some employees out there who cannot access a computer? Mr. Rushton: That is not doing every employee. Page 17 Mr. Colclough: So we’re spending a lot of money for the departments and not training the employees? Mr. Rushton: We’re training key employees in every department. Not every employee. Mr. Colclough: But every employee is a key one, isn’t he? If he’s out there in the field-- Mr. Rushton: I’m saying people that do the purchase requisitions. We don’t let everybody purchase or everybody do payroll. I’m not saying that. That’s all I’m saying. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Beard: I just have one question. And I was just wondering from the Administrator, could we get an outline of each department’s spending in reference to this $95,000 for the training? Mr. Oliver: Sure. I believe Mr. Rushton has the spreadsheet on that. I would say Item 32 is a good problem to have. That’s because we have more people who want to use the system than are currently provided for, and 32 provides for additional licenses for the departments, because you have to remember that the departments--before we used to send out budget reports to the department. Now the departments can print their own budget report any time they want, so they can check on their own budget. That is a major undertaking, but Mr. Rushton has that spreadsheet and he will send it out. Mr. Beard: I really had no big problem with 32; 31 was my concern. Mayor Young: Would you like to vote on these separately, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: You can take both of them together. Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Handy: I move for approval. Mr. Powell: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of Items 31 and 32, please vote Page 18 aye. MR. COLCLOUGH VOTES NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: I realize we are through with the consent agenda. I just want to ask something for clarification. I’m not on Engineering Services, but I notice there is not a reference, and probably because it’s a temporary situation, on Item 17, but you’ve got quite a few people here on Item 65, and what I want to know before we move away from that is is there anything in 17, from those folks who do serve on Engineering Services, that we need to take in conjunction with 65, or can they be handled totally separate, inasmuch as you’ve got street intersection there? You’re talking about one on Scott and another one there on Saybrook. I just want to get a clarification on that before we move away from it. I didn’t ask for it to be pulled, but you’ve got some relationship in there and that’s just what I was trying to find out. Mayor Young: Does somebody have an answer to that question? Mr. Mays: I was directing it mainly to people who are on that committee, staff, 17 and 65 have any relationship? Mr. Speaker: I own property over there. Mayor Young: You own property where, sir? Mr. Speaker: Saybrook and Scott Road. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, would you like to reconsider this item? Would you like to get a motion out to reconsider? Mr. Mays: Yes, I would. Cause we haven’t got to 65 yet, but I’m saying if they are in conjunction there, and I don’t know what you did at Engineering Services and I was trying to look to relate with it, and I guess because it said a temporary closing. But if we’re going, I guess, discuss in terms of the paving of one or not paving, it kind of--how does that relate in reference to the temporary closing, probably Page 19 how long, or whatever, in that situation? Cause we’re talking about in the same geographical area. Mayor Young: Let’s hear from the chairman, Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mays, the items were something totally separate. Mr. Goins can probably address the closing of the street better, but I can tell you a little bit about Item 65, and if I’m in order, Mr. Mayor, would you rather me take it up now or would you rather wait till we get to 65? Mayor Young: Let’s wait till we get to 65. But we can actually move 65 up. Mr. Oliver: 17, if you recall, was someone requested that this be temporarily closed because there was a problem with illegal dumping in that particular area, and it was the decision of the Engineering Services commission that one way to do that was to make it physically more difficult for people to pull back in there and dump things illegally. And that was the reason for--that’s the background for 17. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. That request, rather, Mr. Mayor, came in through my office, and the purpose of just temporarily doing it would be that if the other property owners on Saybrook wanted to develop their property, it could then be reopened so that you would have full access to the area. The problem is that there are no inhabitants on the other undeveloped lots and people are coming in there and trashing the county’s right-of-way and other private properties, using it as a trash dump, and this would be an attempt, if it can’t be enforced, the people that came before the Engineering Services Committee indicated that there is really no way to enforce it be increased enforcement from the Marshal’s Department or the Sheriff’s Department or the Inspections Department, so this was an attempt to address that problem where we could do it on a temporary basis, then should there be further development on that Saybrook, on that dead end of Saybrook, that would probably cure the problem because you would have people living there who would be their own deterrent to the dumping. But the problem is the dumping on undeveloped lots right now, as I explained it to the committee. Mayor Young: Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Yes, and Mr. Mays, to add to what Mr. Page 20 Shepard has said, it’s something that we have done in other situations where we had Indian Hills, which was out by our landfill. What we’ve done is we went in and put a gate up at the end of the road and gave all the property owners a key to the gate. And that’s worked out very well out there, and I was thinking that was something on the lines of what Mr. Goins was going to do here. Mayor Young: Does that satisfy your concerns, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’m getting an explanation on it. Cause what it was, when I saw it, I know the two were related. I know map-wise they are related. But I knew since they were here for 65, I wanted to know what was going on in 17, and by not being on that committee. I didn’t have information at that point. Mayor Young: Do you want to reconsider the item? Mr. Mays: Not necessarily. If that’s in satisfaction, you’ve got property owners from Saybrook that might have any objection or any further discussion, but I think that explains pretty much what the temporary closing was about. But I didn’t want to move away from it since you were hearing two connecting streets and we not discuss it or have an explanation on it. That’s all I wanted. Mayor Young: Okay. Madame Clerk, let’s proceed with the order of the day. Let’s go ahead and take--we’ve got some people here for 53 and then we’ll take 65 after that. Clerk: Item 53: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Charles C. Pangle, on behalf of Augusta Friends, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwester right-of-way of Telfair Street, 121.0 feet east of th the southeast corner of the intersection of 4 Street and Telfair Street. Mayor Young: How many objectors do we have here? Would you give us a show of hands for the agenda, rather for the Clerk to make a note of for the record? And how many proponents are there for this item? Could we see a show of hands? (8 OBJECTORS NOTED) (8 PROPONENTS NOTED) Page 21 Mayor Young: We had a rather thorough debate of this item at our previous meeting. If either side has some new information they’d like to present to the Commission, we’ll be glad to hear that at this time. But let’s not cover old ground that we went over two weeks ago. Yes, sir? Please give us your name and your address. Mr. Pangle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m Charlie Pangle, 336 Green Forest Court, Martinez, Georgia. The last time we spoke, Mr. Gordon Lane, who represents the Quaker organization, the Augusta Friends, that’s the name on this petition, spoke and presented those things about the rezoning. What I’d like to do right quickly, and then I would like to spread my five minutes time over a couple of people here. I have to introduce them. But I would like to introduce Marie Hawkins, who is the owner of the business. She did not speak last time. I want you to know. Marie, would you stand up. This is Marie and she’s the lady that entered into the lease after she was dislocated from her other place. Gordon Lane and several members of the organization. Gordon spoke last time. I also have today Kathy Maness. Kathy works at the CSRA Business League but she’s not here to talk on their behalf. She’s a Friend and also has some things that we feel are interests that she would like to say. Pat Jones, who is a neighbor. Pat, would you raise your hand? And also owns a business in the area. She also would like to speak. And what I would like to do quickly, Mr. Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission, is to kind of get to the bottom line first and then I’d like Kathy to speak and also a representatives from the Augusta Friends organization to speak, too. Essentially, if Commissioner Lee Beard would reconsider submitting his motion, I would like to represent some things that may be considerations for why this should be presented. His motion was essentially to let Marie operate her business until her lease expires. The good neighbors who live on Telfair who had the objections to the business, essentially was the business was B-1, or that would be the proposed zoning and they did not want to open the door for other B-1 zoning, as you all remember. This proposal, this proposed motion, would be to let Marie, who has substantially invested some money, really a mistake. This building has been used time and time again as people have moved in and out, without the proper zoning. I submit that it’s the Commission’s charge to put the proper zoning on this property and I feel like if we could do this for her, then it could revert to R-1, which the property has now. As far as the signage is concerned, her little 12” x 18” sign is about 20 percent the size of most of the other business. The bar across the street, the attorneys’ offices, Page 22 several other businesses that are through there. And she has off-street parking, which is behind the building. And my main concern for helping Marie is that it would put her under undue hardship to do this and it is in her best interest, of course, if we could do something like this. I would like to recognize Kathy Maness at this time. Ms. Maness: Good afternoon to Hon. Young and the council. I appear here as an advocate for the small business. I’m not here representing the Business League, but I am a small business advocate, and we have worked with Ms. Hawkins at Glamour & Glitz. I do know the hardship that she’s gone through to get located at this particular site. She was displaced by development in the Olde Town area, and she just moved to that location four months ago. A move now would mean that Ms. Hawkins would have to find another place to go. She had searched the city over before going to 340 Telfair Street. There are no other suitable locations. She’s had to go into the building and made it ready, site ready, for the beauty shop. Outside of that fact, we’re in the city talking about creating jobs, as we speak six people will be displaced of a job if she’s closed down or she’s not allowed to have a business license to operate Glamour & Glitz. So we ask you if you would just please reconsider. She has spent over $5,000, $5,000 plus on this building readying it, looking around for other sites, which cannot begin to tell you the time that has been consumed in doing this. And as I said, I’m here to plead their case. I’m not an attorney as I’ve been accused, but I’m here to plead their case. We know that sometimes we must take a position that is neither safe nor comfortable nor convenient, but we must do so because our conscience tells us it’s right. This is the right thing to do. We’re looking at a small business. We’re talking about business development. We’re talking about keeping business downtown, and I plead with you today, please consider this small business owner. She’s not on the welfare list, looking for welfare. She has created herself a job and has created six other people jobs. I beg, please consider the zoning for this area. Thank you. Ms. Reese: I’m Marguerite Reese. I am a co-clerk of the Augusta Friends meeting. I live at 3021 Fox Spring Road. I have been with the meeting since we moved into the meeting house at 340 Telfair, and we have frequently rented out the meeting house to things that we felt would be benefit to the community, that would upgrade the area, and that would really help people in this community. We have had a day care center in the community, we’ve had a young couple renting the meeting house at one point who opened it up for a recreation program in the summer for children in the area, recreational and Page 23 educational program. We’ve had a carpenter rent there who did carpentry work in the neighborhood to support himself. We have had the Augusta Food Bank there for a while. As a meeting, we’ve been doing alternative to violence training there for the benefit of the community and the schools and the prisons here to cut down on the level of violence. And we have rented to professionals in the area, some of whom really have done a good bit to increase the value of the property and the appearance of it. So we’ve done a number of things. Our present renter has come from three years in the community, where she’s had a business. She has local clientele who can walk to her business. It’s tastefully done. She’s a good renter with us. And we see this as really contributing to the life of the community. And I would like to ask, since the Quakers, the Religious Society of Friends got a waiver to get in there in the first place, and no waivers were ever asked for a granted when we had professionals renting there, I would like to ask for a waiver to allow Glamour & Glitz to stay at the meeting house until which time either they or the Religious Society of Friends terminate that, at which point it would revert back to what it has been all along, and that’s multi-family housing. Thank you. Mayor Young: All right, Ms. Jones, we’ll here from you and you’ll be the last speaker, please, and then we need to move along here. Ms. Jones: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Pat Jones. I live in the community and I work in the community. And I’m a part of the Olde Town Neighborhood Association. As you know, Olde Town has two associations, one for the Walker Street area and one for the Greene Street area. I’m a part of the Walker Street area. As far as Glamour & Glitz is concerned, we were neighbors when we on Second Street, Third Street, and you know that White Oak bought the neighborhood, they had to move and they had to find some place to go. We have enough businesses that pepper our community that is a camouflage for something else. I can truly say that Glamour & Glitz is a beauty shop. They cut the children’s hair at the Youth Center and I don’t see where there should be such a big problem. I realize that the zoning was not correct or whatever, but I don’t think somebody should have to suffer because it was not done right. I mean I was told by Charles DeVaney that we wanted to do everything we could to bring businesses in our community. I also was told by Mayor Bob Young when he was campaigning we want to do everything business in our community. So we’ve got a business here and I don’t think we need to lose it. It’s good to be able to walk to a beauty shop. If you look at the bus schedules, you’ll Page 24 see that a lot of people in Olde Town ride the bus. Everybody in Olde Town does not have cars, and it’s good to be able to walk around the corner to a beauty shop. I realize that you all need to do something about the zoning, but I’m asking you all to please let her stay there until her lease is up. And as Ms. Maness said, we don’t want any more people out of work. We don’t want any more people getting back on welfare. We want to try to help our community and I speak for our part of the community. And I know it shouldn’t be our part of the community, it should be just a community. And that’s what Olde Town needs to be, just a community. And I saw something the other day, Mr. Mayor, when I read about this and it really disturbed me. I looked at the signs, and they have Olde Town on it, which means Olde Town is going to lose business, not just part of it. The whole town is going to lose business. And we’re trying to do better. We’re trying to stop crime, we’re trying to work with the drugs, work with the police department and everybody else, including Commissioner Beard, to try to make a difference in our community. We’ve got a legal business that’s trying to do the best they can, nobody is standing in front of the building, nobody’s loitering, nobody’s drinking or doing drugs or nothing. Why can’t we work to let them stay there until they can get their zoning or find them someplace else to go. Thank you for your time. Mayor Young: Thank you, Ms. Jones. Now we had some objectors who want to speak. And again, I’m going to ask the objectors to--if you have some new information, we want to hear from you. Let’s not rehash everything we talked about two weeks. Ms. Leiden: Sara Leiden. 2907 Henry Street. I won’t rehash. Commissioners, Mayor Young. This bothers me. At the very last meeting, the Society of Friends stated they had not idea what their zoning was. Today they just said we are a multi-residential, family residential--what we have always been. We’ve got criminal violations of city ordinances here. No one is taking that into consideration. Are we going to pat these people on the hand and say, fine, because the church wants revenue we’re going to allow them to get away with this? Which means anyone in this city can move in to any property zoned whatever and come before this board and have some sad story? And we do feel sorry for her. Honestly we do. Someone has been misled here. I would propose that she be allowed to remain in this building until December 31, 1999, rent free. Obviously this was not her mistake. This is between the Friends and the realtor. Thank you. Oh, one more question, please. How long is the lease? Five year lease. Do you think at the end of this lease this board is going to say, Page 25 yeah, we’re going to revert back to multi-family? Thank you., Mayor Young: Please address your questions to the chair. Yes, next. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Mr. Fogle: Your Honor and Commissioners, I’m David Fogle. I’m a business owner in Olde Town, own the Azalea Inn on Greene Street. Also, me and my family reside on Greene Street. I’m also past president of the Neighborhood Association. And this request for rezoning was denied, as everyone knows, by Planning and Zoning. However, we also had an Olde Town Neighborhood Association meeting two weeks ago, and it was the unanimous consensus of all the attendees of that meeting that we are against business encroachment into our neighborhood. The operators of the salon have been operating without a proper business license and zoning, as you well know. And it’s not her fault. The leasing agent misrepresented to her that it was properly zoned. But we are against business encroachment into our neighborhood. Between the overpass of the Gordon Highway cutting off Olde Town, we’ve had a lot of instances of businesses trying to move toward our neighborhood. The operators of the salon, they can move within two blocks of any direction and be in a properly zoned location. We don’t find fault with the operator of the salon, but there’s a lot of places either in the Laney-Walker, East Boundary, or Broad Street corridor that have proper zoning for the operator of the salon. So we do request that you concur with the Planning and Zoning board and deny this permit for rezoning. Mayor Young: Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? Give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Watkins: My name is Tom Watkins. I live at 310 Greene Street. I, like Ms. Jones, both live and work in the area. And I would be perfectly willing--I have a pretty good background in business experience in setting up businesses, and I’d certainly be willing to help her find a new location, perhaps a better location and one that could house more people, etc., but I think we get into an extreme situation here when we let anybody move anywhere they want into a residential neighborhood, set up a business, and just start operating, and then beg for hardship for this reason or that reason. I don’t think it would be difficult to make a move and get her up and going and get her up and going profitable. And we certainly don’t want this to happen in our neighborhood any more than you, anybody on this Commission would allow this to happen in their own neighborhoods. Thank you. Page 26 Mayor Young: Anything from the Commissioners? Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question. As I looked in here for backup information, and I’m real curious of this location. Is this a house or is this the brick building over there that the top floor is residential and the bottom floor was business? Mr. Pangle: It’s a small house. It’s about 1100 square feet. There’s not a functional kitchen in this property. It has been used for the meeting place for the Augusta Quakers. One of the reasons they decided to rent it was to get some revenue so they could continue to upkeep the building. On both sides and all down the street aren’t residences. I mean there are some there, but it’s mostly other offices, professional offices and things like that. One story. Mr. Powell: Law offices and that type stuff? Mr. Pangle: Yes. Mayor Beard: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make the motion that I made before, and that is that the tenants be allowed to remain there under the present zoning until their lease is up and then it revert back to the zoning that it has now. And I also like to remind my fellow commissioners that in a couple of weeks, the next couple of meetings, we’re going to be faced with similar problems from an agency. So we ought to be aware of that also. Mayor Young: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Bridges, you wanted to speak? Mr. Bridges: Jim, I just had a legal question. It seems to me that the beauty shop owners had this property misrepresented as to zoning. Is that a legal matter between her and realtor? Is there somebody involved that she would be able to seek I guess monies from for misrepresenting the property? I’m concerned about her putting in $5,000 and not being able to get it back out. Mr. Wall: I do think it’s a private matter. Obviously I have not seen her lease agreement. Don’t know the facts of what may be included in the lease agreement. But if there was a misrepresentation, her claim would be back against potentially the real estate company that leased the property Page 27 to her. That would be a matter of proof as far as what was said and what was not said at that time. Mayor Young: Mr. Handy. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from George Patty concerning this particular item. Mr. Patty: Well, this neighborhood is obviously a mixture of land uses, single-family residential, multi-family residential, professional. And there are a couple of businesses in the neighborhood. The pub across the street and the French restaurant on the corner of Fourth and Telfair. But those are businesses that have been in that neighborhood for a long, long time. There are no new businesses in that area except for the ones that Mr. Beard alluded to will be coming before you in the near future. And I would think it would be a dangerous precedent to start zoning for businesses in that area. There’s sort of an equilibrium there between the land uses that could easily be broken, and I would recommend it not. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? I might add for the record that I met with the owners of the business, along with Stewart Walker from our License and Inspection Department a couple of days after the last Commission meeting, and we discussed the fact that a business can not be allowed to operate in the city without proper zoning and a proper business license. And they’re well aware that if the decision of the Commission today is not to approve the rezoning, that they will cease operating their business today. Today would be their last day of business in that location and they will have to find a proper location and obtain a current city business license to continue their business, and they’re well aware of that and were in agreement of that in the meeting we had. Mr. Oliver: The motion that’s made to rezone the property with it to revert back; however, we would ask that you make it either the end of the lease term or date certain, because it’s almost impossible for us to enforce the end of a lease term because we don’t know when it is. So our suggestion would be to go both ways, because we can trigger a date. We have a very difficult time triggering a lease expiration date. Mayor Young: Wouldn’t you want to know more about that lease? It may have options for renewal. It may go on for a long time. Mr. Kuhlke. Page 28 Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make a substitute motion that we allow the owner to operate until the end of the year but we do not rezone the property. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Mays, did you have your hand up? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, first let me ask. Is that a substitute motion? Mayor Young: No, Lee did not get a second. Mr. Mays: So that would be the primary motion that’s on the floor? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: That’s still--Lee’s is open that deals with a substitute if we have to. The problem I have in this situation is I think it cuts both ways. I think you’ve got a clear hardship in terms of where the business proprietor has been put in. And I know it’s not our deal to discuss what else we’re going to do in that particular block. But it does concern me from the standpoint that there’s a lot of mixture going on there. There’s a lot of mixture that’s there period. And this is one I’ve lost out on and probably one that I’ve got sympathy from the Planning director on, but it’s one we’ve not been able to deal with with the laws that we’re confined to. I’m not so sure--you know, revenue is revenue. To a certain extent, I think the young lady may be more a victim of where she’s classified as a business as opposed to the zoning wherein. Now if you make appointments for walk-in customers or drive-in customers to a salon and you make appointments to see a lawyer and you’ve got one in a professional status, one in a business status, this is one that I’ve long thought, Mr. Mayor, probably needs to be relooked at from the standpoint of how do you classify this type of business, in terms of the way a lot of these buildings have been redone, recreated, have quiet businesses that have been placed even in neighborhood. And at the same time, where we deal with one, and both of them are making revenue. The lawyers make money. The folks in the beauty shop make money. But we got to deal with one in terms of going into the business. That gets me to the point that does put pressure on me, from the standpoint that I have not been a strong supporter over a lot of years of going from Page 29 residential zoning to business zoning. And it’s hard to pick and choose in an element where even if there is a hardship, to go back and say the ones that you voted, even when you probably lost some personal friendships with is, but have had to stay with those zonings as opposed to changing them, one to another. We’ve had some where probably the business were maybe harmless. On the other side, where we’ve had to vote to keep them from going to be one or to be two, not so much maybe for the existing or potential person, but for what it might bring in in reference to the other change in the zoning. What I’m wondering, George, and I can clearly understand why that vote went like it did in Planning, but is there no middle ground in reference to possibly dealing with a longer date, but maybe not the date that deals with the lease, but of a reasonable date to give her to stay in that particular building in a non-conforming status and then try, at least from the standpoint of money recovery, and that would not change the zoning that would be able to vacate the situation at some point in a reasonable basis. We’re talking about September and somebody moving out basically where you’ve got Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays, the whole nine yards. It will be upon us real soon. The first of the year is not a long time, and I realize that’s not the fault of residents who are there in that community, and even other property owners with that zoning. But I think if we’re going to, and I agree with Lee, if we’re going to uphold that statute, then we need to uphold it totally down the line and we need some other direction from Planning and Zoning, Mr. Mayor, as to where the artificial buffer is going to take place and where we’re going to enforce it, because you’ve had parties--I mean not you personally--but what I’m saying is they’ve been conducted in that area. We’ve got semi-businesses going on. And I’m not just saying this for this one. But we need to make a firm decision in there, pass maybe what is zoned professional, as to what we’re going to do, with this whole block. Because I’m not going to feel comfortable if I’m going to stay consistent with keeping this zoning like it is, and then I’m going to come back in a couple of weeks or a month with a larger agency that’s going to want us to do something of a similar nature and we be back and say, well, all right, these are good folks. And we turn that one into one where we approve the zoning. Because it’s coming. And I think we ought to be real consistent about where we move out of this one. This would give some relief to her. I’ve heard about the misrepresentation on the realtor’s part. But the owners re here, too. Something maybe can be cleared up from the standpoint--the real estate company, it represents somebody. It doesn’t just go out and get a piece of property and represent it by itself. If you hire a realtor company to Page 30 lease your property, sell it, or whatever, then if everybody’s agreeing that there has been somewhat of a misrepresentation, then maybe in ownership it needs to broaden a little bit to say you’ve not done your job. And I’ve not heard that expressed. Maybe that was expressed two weeks ago. But I’ve not heard that expressed today. So I think you’ve got a quandary of things here. I’m just hoping that there can be some middle ground here to maybe extending the time limit, dealing with the non-conformance status, and work it from that standpoint. I don’t think you can lock in to a five-year, non-conforming situation at all. I think you’ve either got to turn it down or you’ve got to find some other middle ground that you can work in in a non-conforming situation. And hopefully, and this is on the record but off the record, I’m hoping in that time frame that somehow this is one of those businesses that you can you get classified maybe into a more realistic area as to what it ought to be zoned for so that if it’s acceptable where you sit down with neighborhood groups and plan what you are going to put in, then they don’t have to worry about the extremity of a zoning being changed from residential to total business. Mayor Young: Let’s hear from Mr. Shepard now. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the maker of the motion and that the objectors consider a different time frame. Mr. Mays didn’t speak to a specific frame, but I was thinking a little over a year and make the time frame September 30, 2000. I’m thinking this would give this lady a year in which she could operate as non-conforming. She wouldn’t have to close down today. I was wondering if the maker of the motion would consider that time frame as more appropriate, particularly would the objectors consider that more appropriate? Mayor Young: Let me ask you this. If the objectors accept that, would you raise your hand? We have three objectors who indicate they would accept. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll amend my motion, if the seconder will accept it. Mr. Shepard: I’ll agree. Mayor Young: And that would be to September 30, 2000? And that would also be subject to the purchase of a valid business license? Okay, we have motion on the floor and it’s been seconded, it’s been amended. Let’s go ahead and vote on Page 31 it now. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. Mayor Young: Let’s go ahead and take up Item 65. We have a number of people here who are interested in that item. Clerk: Item 65: Consider proposed options for dust control on Scott Street. Mayor Young: Could we get a show of hands of how many people are here for this item? I understand there are quite a few here. Okay. Let me clarify one thing to you. There was a lot of discussion in the committee meeting about other problems in the neighborhood. The motion or the caption of the item on the agenda today is to discuss dust control on Scott Street. And so the chair will hereby rule that all conversation and discussion and debate should be relevant to dust control on Scott Street, and other issues are not appropriate to discuss at this forum today. Mr. Handy: I would like to make a motion to go ahead and pave the 500-foot portion of Scott Street, because of the dust and because of the health hazard. And I’d like to put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Beard: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second to pave the street. I believe our back-up data has some figures. Mr. Handy: And I also, there was a conversation that a participation in the homeowners, and I’d like to put that in there. Mayor Young: Participation to what extent? Mr. Handy: I think--we can go back and look at it. I’d like to put that in the formal motion if the homeowner will accept that. For right now, what we’re trying to do is alleviate the problem that they have on the particular street. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Oliver, Mr. Wall, I think when we talk about participation we need to define that. Mr. Oliver: Well, what was discussed briefly in the Page 32 committee and it was asked that it be brought back to the committee the next go-around was that we have a number of unpaved roads, as all of you are aware, in the total community, and obviously each person who lives on an unpaved road feels that that particular road is the most important. What was asked was that we come back to the committee with some kind of participation arrangement that would escalate that road on the list. Before you came into office, Mr. Mayor, the Commission set up some criteria for rating roads and they did that within each district. They prioritized the roads and they took the order in which they’re going to be paved. But my recollection is that there’s some 80 to 100 roads that remain unpaved. Mayor Young: Can we assess payment by the property owners if they are not in agreement with this? Mr. Oliver: Yes, we can do that. We have to go through a process to do that. Mr. Wall can address the process. Mr. Wall: You would have to set up a service district if you want to assess against--you could have an agreement with the property owner if he were to agree to pay a portion of the cost. Mayor Young: Because the issue here is we have one homeowner, but we have a number of property owners. Mr. Oliver: Well, what was discussed in the committee, where Commissioner Handy refers to the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 was apparently there was an old practice where 1/3 of it was paid by the property owner on one side of the road, 1/3 was by the property owner on the other side of the road, and 1/3 by the jurisdiction doing the paving. Mayor Young: Is that the formula you wanted to include in your motion, Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: I wanted to put that out there. Now I’m not saying that that would be the determining factor of whether we voting for it. Mayor Young: Let’s move along with our discussion. Mr. Oliver: $6,000 is the estimate cost according to Public Works. Mayor Young: Just a moment. We had a couple of Commissioners who wanted to speak. Mr. Bridges. Page 33 Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have sympathy for anybody that lives on a dirt road. I’ve got 50 or 60 of them th in my district. The majority of them are in the 8 District, so I’m very sympathetic to anybody that lives on there. I do get quite a few calls from people that want their road moved up and paved ahead of time. And just to give the audience and maybe others some of the background on how we came up with how the roads were to be paved, a couple of years ago the Commission came up with criteria based on how long the road is, how old it is, how many people live on it, and gave it a point system, developed that point system by road, and just put the roads in order, the road with the highest points first and just we’re going down the list, paving those roads as we come to it. Unfortunately, this road is apparently further down the list than the residents would like it to be. Also, I get quite a few calls. Cliff Ayers Road is one of them I’m thinking of right now. They’re fourth from the bottom. They want to be moved up and paved right now. That type thing. And I’ve explained to those people out there in my district we can’t do that, we have a list of roads to be paved and that’s the manner that it goes in. However, I do support what Mr. Handy’s--I do support the move on the Engineering Services to consider 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Then I could go back to these same people and say, look, if you’re willing to pay, we might, we can move that up. But I don’t think we need to just arbitrarily take one road and say we want to pave this portion of it, which would not be considerate of those other people that have lived on roads for 40 years, 30 years and whatever. Once again, I sympathize with anybody who lives on a dirt road. We plan to pave them all eventually, but I don’t think we need to get in the practice of jumping one road ahead of another unless we come up with a new procedure. I think we should continue in the practice that we’ve maintained and been consistent with in the past. Mayor Young: Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Yes, in committee, Mr. Mayor I know you were there, but there were some Commissioners that weren’t present at that committee meeting. And the lady who is president of the neighborhood association, what we had agreed to do was for her to go back to the neighborhood association and to ask the property owners whether they were willing to participate in a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 procedure or ever--they could participate in order to move the road up. What we were trying to do was to give her time to go to the neighbors, come back to the committee, and let us know exactly what their answer was. In the meantime, Mr. Oliver was to come up with a process for Page 34 participation and bring it back to the committee for approval prior to the lady from the neighborhood association. I can’t remember your name, I’m very sorry, but I’m poor with that. Mrs. Gaines. To come back. And once she came back with her answer, we would already have a procedure in place to try to help her if the neighborhood property owners wanted to participate. And that’s where we left it in committee. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I requested this to be put on the committee and I did it for a reason. I’m very familiar with Belair. I lived there at one time. And I know for the last 37 years that these people have been promised different things and they have not gotten those things, and it’s always been pushed back and pushed back. I’m glad that the Engineering Committee and the Commissioners finally agreed on a prioritized list, but one reason why I went on and put this on was because of what I heard from the people on that street, the person on that street. It is causing an extreme health hazard for his children, and I think that $6,000 is not a large sum of money to be spent for health hazard for our children if it’s creating that problem. And this is why I insisted that we only included Scott Street here. We’re not talking about the other roads out there because they’ve got plenty more out there, and I’m sure they’re on the list somewhere. But we’re talking about a health hazard here, we’re talking about something that maybe liability from us later on down the road if these kids continue to be sick and if this family becomes ill. So this is why I said that I thought that our Commissioners should look at this, use a little sympathy and a little consideration here in granting this. This is not a lot. This is about 400 feet to be paved and that’s all they’re asking for out there. And they have been asking and asking for much more out there and never receive anything. Why can’t we show a little compassion and pave this? Now as far as that policy is concerned, I think we’re going to have to be very careful with that because we’re not going to only talk about Belair, we’re talking about the entire county, if we’re going to go into that. And I think we need for our Administrator and our legal person to look into that and come up with something. And that’s good. I have no objection to that. But today I think we’re talking about Scott Street, paving 400 feet for $6,000. And I don’t think that’s much for those people out there who put out an extremely, an extremely amount of taxes to our city. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Page 35 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I attended the Engineering Services Committee, and it was my understanding that this matter was going to be referred back to the Engineering Services Committee. I’m no stranger, as Ms. Gaines knows, to the Belair Hills Neighborhood Association meetings. I invite any of you to come. I’m sure she’d like to have them. I was anticipating going back with Mr. Oliver and working at it that way. I think we need to respect the committee structure. Belair has been studied in the previous administration and the implementation of that is beginning and the first implementation we had is in the area of water, where the water lines are being upgraded. In fact, this individual, Mr. Hayes, was the first recipient of some upgrading of his line so that he could have water brought to his property. I think Mr. Hayes will agree with us. About a year ago, so that he could develop his property. And I made a suggestion in the Engineering Services Committee, don’t sit on it Mr. Chairman, but I suggested that we look at crush and run, and I notice that none of that was included in today’s alternative. And I know Mr. Murphy’s left and he has capable assistants, but I think that the process--are we going to ignore the committee structure or are we going to use the committee structure? And what I’m trying to do is work through the committee structure, and I know that the people have been patient out there and I think we’ve delivered certain things to this lot individually, we’re in the process of delivering water. There are concerns out there for other streets other than Scott. There’s Carolyn Street out there. If we get outside of Belair, I am in receipt of many complaints, just like my predecessor in this seat, about Rifle Range Road, which is a dusty street. Causes problems, has heavy truck traffic and have school bus traffic. So I would ask, Mr. Mayor, that we work through the committee structure, that Mr. Oliver and I be given a chance to go back to the neighborhood and handle this problem, that it is a problem that we will handle and I think we’ve shown that we have a commitment to the process, but being the subject of this meeting is quite frankly a little surprise. I thought we were going to work through the process, and here we’re trying to short-circuit the process. So I think we should work through the process, give it a chance to work. If there’s still a problem, we can look at it. That’s what we can do. Mayor Young: Would you like to make a substitute motion? Mr. Shepard: I make a substitute motion to send it back to the Engineering Services Committee. Mr. Powell: Second. Page 36 Mayor Young: There’s a motion and a second. Let’s do this. Let everyone speak over here and then we’ll come back around. Mr. H. Brigham: Certainly I was not on the committee. I sat in the meeting and some of my good friends asked me, why didn’t you say something? I was not on the committee and only the committee people got a chance to vote on it. But I do feel that this ought to be looked at, and I’m not so sure that there’s no law, Mr. Attorney and Mr. Mays, that you can’t have exceptions to some rules. I think that if we were making this the rule, I think that would be understandable. But we’re making one exception, and I think that’s what Mr. Beard mentioned earlier and I think that’s what Mr. Handy’s suggestion was. And I would hope that we would consider this. Next year sometime between May and September, we’re going back to these same people to ask them to work with us for five more years. And gentlemen, you’ve got to show some good faith if you want people to continue through the years. Now I know Mr. Shepard has been out there for two or three years and I was with his previous predecessors for about the last three or four years. I’ve met with them and worked with them, Mr. Neel and Mr. Beckham, you name them. Somewhere down the line, all laws, I think Mr. Attorney said we can make some exceptions. An exception, then, does not become the rule. And I would hope today that our colleagues will see fit to show some good faith effort for the folks in this neighborhood. I don’t live there, but where Mr. Shepard’s talking about, too, I have no problem with that. But unless we show some good faith to some of these folks somewhere down the line, we’re going to come up next year balanced and found wanting. And I certainly wouldn’t want that to be done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to ask Mr. Goins where is this road on the list, number-wise? And the reason I ask that question is that I’m sympathetic to anybody that lives on a dirt road. But I represent District 3, I also represent District 6 and District 8, and I can tell you politically, depending on where that road is, if it jumps up, you don’t know the pressure that’s put on Mr. Bridges, Mr. Powell, and myself for the other 40 or 50 roads we’ve got in this community, to push them up to the front, too. It makes it pretty tough. What is it, Mr. Goins? Mr. Goins: There are about 75 roads that are left th unpaved and this one is about 50 from the top, give or take Page 37 one or two. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Young: Anyone else down on this end? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: I’m probably against both motions, and I’ll try and explain why. I know that the first motion that Mr. Handy made in trying to get this passed and to get some sympathy because he’s caught in a box in it and it may be the only way we get it out on a 1/3 basis. And his motion is in good faith. But I feel it’s bad he has to make that type of motion. Because I agree with Lee, I think you’re fixing to set up a dangerous precedent which some people make like today but they may not like it further down the line, because I think with all the sales tax money that’s been passed since 1987, and you start getting into a participating formula and particular during those years and the first two sales tax where you were dealing with roads, bridges, and a jail, that we need to look--and this is not the time to do it here-- you’ve go a bunch of innocent folk, even sitting at the table, probably Belair has received more attention from recent predecessors than it did in the past. But two problems I think make this situation stand out. One, Mr. Mayor, is that it was never ranked as a high priority by some previous folks anyway. And under the so-called gentleman’s rule, a lot of folks didn’t step over in the other folks’ districts. Sometimes in Belair, some folks had to step over because the folks who were there representing, didn’t represent it. Now that gets us to the point that we started talking about streets in Belair. And why I think that that ranking to a certain extent has a little fallacy in it is because there was a debate even into the consolidated government as to whether or not those were true streets in Belair or whether they were paper streets. Now mysteriously one day, to the benefit of the folk in Belair, there became a document that was presented to the Commission which some of us had argued about all along, Henry, that we said was there. That it popped up that the county had accepted those streets years and years ago. And the argument for low ranking it for so many years was the fact that they were paper streets and not accepted. Well, if the documentation was there and it was wrong and it was overlooked, that should have some bearing to deal with this small item, because they probably were improperly placed in a ranking system anyway, because they were considered not to be Page 38 real streets. Now the former director of Public Works came in here and presented that item. Of course, he was on his way out and there probably wasn’t any political damage at that time for him to present it. But he presented it, right in this chamber. And I’m glad he did present it. But it somehow got mysteriously lost for some decades, just lost. Wasn’t there. And my argument all the time was even if it was paper streets, folks were still getting documents from Richmond County with a tax bill. So they were being found on paper, so they ought to be able to be located by some eyesight in order to be able to charge back to deal with the taxing situation. I would hope we would not have to go and I hope the people in Belair can understand that I don’t like this formula, even if that’s the only way to do it. But I think that with the amount of development that’s been done there, quite frankly in a lot of cases even with the absence of county government and consolidated government, with what has been put on the tax books there in terms of the building structures that have been done, that if this small strip as a spin-off, and having not even been considered a part of the sales tax family until this last go-round, to even be talked about, I think that’s a real travesty to even as many roads as we’re paving and we’ve got some and God knows I respect those folks in deep south Richmond, particularly where the majority of those roads are, but I also--and to your credit, you were not here either. But a whole lot of roads in south Richmond that did get paved with nobody living on them that run a long way with no houses on them, that they got a lot of asphalt out there, and we’re only talking about a few hundred feet. So I think you’ve got some circumstances that surround this situation, that warrant you being able to do it, and without doing a participating formula. Now if that’s 100 percent in agreement with these folks, I don’t mind listening, but I still think that’s a bad precedent to set, because we are paving a whole lot of streets, a whole lot of roads. We pave some two and three different times. There was a joke one time that they paved Aumond Road so many times that they went back and wanted to know whether or not it was still on the list or was it a mistake, cause it had been paved so many times. I think this one ought to be dealt with out of the normal confines of being able to deal with the paving system, and not of opening up one on a 1/3 formula, because that gets to what happens when you get to those need situation? You open up a 1/3 formula, then that that has been afforded some of us that have been lucky to live on a paved street, are we then going to be able to extract those monies from persons to be able to participate in a 1/3 formula? Maybe they might be able to do it income-wise, but I think it puts then a hardship on the rest of this county to set that precedent. I think it ought to be paved, I think Page 39 you ought to take the formula out of it, and we ought to go up or down and vote on it out of fairness and let that be. Because I think that’s a bad keg of worms to deal with that on a participating basis. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The motion on the floor is a substitute motion to send it back to committee. Let’s hear from the committee chairman, Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, first of all I hear a lot of discussion here about the formula. Let me tell you why we came up with the formula. We didn’t know how many roads we were going to pave. We didn’t know whose road was going to get paved, and it got a situation where it wasn’t all fair. Somebody may put up a sign for a guy whose opposition in a Commission race and his road just kind of slipped to the bottom of the list. Those kind of things were going on. So the Public Works Department come up with a fair criteria for all the citizens that lived on dirt roads. One of the questions on there was not whether or not the street was paper or whether or not the street was a dirt road. I assure you that never came into play. Before the Commission changed, I agree with Mr. Mays, I sat right here and watched the Commissioner from that district oppose even doing anything in there. Luckily we got over that hurdle and put it into a fair system for everybody. I’m not really a great advocate or supporter of the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule. I don’t know that people can afford it. If people--then you get in a situation where you have some people that can afford it and some people that can’t, so you change the criteria for the haves instead of the have-nots. So I like the process that we came up with for dirt roads. I think it's a good, fair process and I think it addresses everybody fairly and equally. As far as the dust problem, Mr. Goins you may want to stand up and let us know what you’ve done about that, but I think Mr. Murphy was to take some calcium chloride out there and put on the street to keep the dust down. Whether that’s been done or not to date, I can’t tell you. But what I would like to see is the neighborhood association come back to the committee and let us know what your wishes are. If you want to participate and if Mr. Oliver can design a criteria around that, then that’s fine. I don’t really think it’s fair. I think what would be fair is to go through that process that’s used for everybody. This road wasn’t even on that list a few years ago. Now it’s on the list. We’re working systematically through it. You can’t budget or run a public works department if you don’t know how many roads you’re going to pave at the beginning of the year. That’s another thing this process has came--we know exactly how far we can go, because we know what roads are Page 40 next. It gives it an order for business. And I would hope that the Commission would send it back to committee and give us a chance to try to hear the concerns of the neighborhood, hopefully we can use the calcium chloride in order to keep the dust down. But I’ve lived on a dirt road. I was raised up on a dirt road. And nobody in here walked many more miles on a dirt road than I have, other than Mr. Ross Crane Archer back there, and he’s walked a few more miles than I have. A dirt road is something that’s not new to me and I’ve lived on them and, maybe that’s why I can’t breathe good. I don’t know, but I can tell you this. There’s a process out there and the process has been fair in the past, and if you’ll stick with the process, the process will be fair in the future. Mayor Young: Let’s take a moment to hear from the neighborhood association, and then we’ll vote on the substitute motion. Mr. Gaines: I’m Glynis Gaines. I live at 1708 Flagler Road. To Mayor Bob Young and the Commissioners. I appreciate what you’re trying to do. And I’m wondering, the formula that you’re coming up in terms of trying to keep the dust down, is that safe for the neighbors? That’s one concern. Secondly, the dust is a problem, but it’s also a problem because we live in a nice neighborhood, we have dirt roads, we pay taxes. We thought about the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 issue. I don’t think we should have to do that. That was the consensus of everybody that I took it back to. We pay taxes already. So why do we have to pay the 1/3, 1/3? It’s sort of like double billing us and I would like to see not only Scott Street paved. When we brought that up, we had a neighbor come along, Ms. Watkins was one of them. She said okay, we’re going to do Scott Street. When it rains, on Carolyn Street, the mud washed back into one of the neighbor’s homes. That’s a major issue. That’s a major concern. Mayor Young: The issue today is Scott Street. Scott Street is the issue today. Ms. Gaines: Scott Street is the issue today. But when I brought up Scott Street, I just happen to have one of my residents here who said, what about me? I don’t know if Mr. Hayes wants to say something in reference to what has been decided today, but we would like to come back whenever you put us back on the agenda. Mayor Young: I think you’re speaking in favor of the substitute motion to send it back to the committee? Page 41 Ms. Gaines: Yes. We would like to come back. Mayor Young: Yes, please identify yourself and your address. Mr. Hayes: I’m Jackie Hayes. Mayor Young, Commissioners. My issue is current. I need relief today. It is not something that will go away. The chemical that you’re going to put on the dust is a temporary fix for a permanent problem, and in the meantime anyone knows where there’s dust, where there’s dirt there’s going to be dust. And not only that, I think that I’m not asking for a lot as taxpaying citizens. That’s 500 feet of pavement and what I’m asking is for you to have some empathy with me. As for me and my family, I have two children who are allergic to it, as well as my wife. And so I don’t think that I’m asking you too much, if you were to vote in my favor today. I appreciate your votes. Thank you. Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor, substitute motion that would refer this issue back to committee. It’s been duly seconded. We’ll go ahead and call the question at this time. All in favor of sending back to committee, please vote aye. MR. BEARD AND MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO. MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. HANDY ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. Mr. Powell: Order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays: Might I ask, Mr. Mayor, whether that’s going to be on the next committee agenda? Mayor Young: Do you anticipate that, Mr. Powell, that it will be on the next agenda? Mr. Powell: Mr. Mays, to address your concern, what I was looking at was Mr. Oliver was to come back with us a process for participation in the dirt roads. And that was to be done at the next committee meeting. The following committee meeting, the neighborhood association was going to come back, but she’s pretty well gave us her answer today on participation aspects of this. Mr. Mays: And that’s why I reluctantly here on my vote. If it’s going to come back to discuss something different, then I don’t mind it coming back to a committee. But if it’s to come back on participation, I think that issue is dead as a Page 42 doorknob. You don’t really have anybody that wants to deal with that anyway. And that’ why I held off so long. Maybe, Mr. Mayor, if you don’t mind I’d like to get clear where they are on that, because if not, then I’ll change it to an abstention or a no and it’s not really anything to talk about. Cause I’m not going to deal with a 1/3 process. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: I’m a little confused because I was thinking, in all due respect to the chairman here, that the Public Works director was supposed to bring this back at the next committee meeting the alternative that he is presenting today. Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. Mr. Beard: And that is correct. So why bring it back to a committee to decide on something that the whole body here has to decide on or is going to decide on at some particular point? But I know it’s a little moot now because we’ve voted. But that was the process, and it was still dealing with Scott Street and the paving and giving the relief of this individual family. Mayor Young: Okay, the order of the day has been called by Mr. Powell. Mr. Mays: I withdraw mine, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Withdraw what? Mr. Mays: My vote period. I started off by saying I wasn’t really in favor or either one of them, cause if the question was moot in reference to the participation, if they’re going to deal with something new at a new committee meeting and the county is going to come up with some different formula than what they discussed, then I don’t have a problem in sending that back. But if it’s to rehash what’s been done already, I won’t support that. Mayor Young: Well, that brings us back to the original motion then, since the substitute has failed, with Mr. Mays withdrawing his affirmative vote. Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the vote machine, we’ll call the original question, which is to pave the road with the participating by the city and the property owners. Mr. Handy: Now on the participation, I put in there for that to be considered. That wasn’t the determining factor, Page 43 whether I want it to go or not. They already said they don’t want participation, so we just be wasting our time trying to vote on something and give them something they don’t want. It’s just to pave the 500 feet. Mayor Young: The original motion now has been remolded to state that we would 500 feet. Mr. Kuhlke: Can I just say something before we vote on this? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: It appears to me that the idea of going back to the committee, and whether they come up with a solution for Scott Street or not, but that committee in my opinion should look at the list that we have. They don’t need to look at just one street in our community. They need--if we’re going to change the rules of the game, if we’re going to come up with a different type plan, it appears to me--I wonder what the people that are number two on the list are going to say if an action is taken like is being proposed right now. But I think that the Engineering Services Committee should come up maybe with a new plan to come back to us that would incorporate all of the unpaved roads in the community. We’re getting read to get ourselves in trouble. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I’ll accept that as an amendment. That satisfies what Mr. Mays wanted, to go back and not to do anything other than what the people want, if what Mr. Kuhlke just said, I accept that as an amendment. Mr. Kuhlke: I make it in the form of an amendment to your motion, then, that it be sent back to Engineering Services for consideration on all unpaved roads and how we came up with the ranking system that we have. Mr. Powell: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: We just voted on that. Mr. Powell: That’s not germane to the motion. The amendment is not germane to the motion. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m getting really confused here. Could I ask the attorney if we’ve voted on something and we’ve had called the order of the day, can we go back and discuss it? Page 44 Mr. Wall: No, not on something that you have already voted on. The question is whether or not the amendment--that is an amendment to that motion, and in my mind it changes the motion around entirely, it would be out of order. I think that change goes back to the original motion. Mr. Kuhlke: You can’t amend it? Mr. Wall: You can amend it, but not in that fashion because then you go back to the original motion that was voted on. Mayor Young: Well, you include the substitute motion and the original motion, and the substitute motion has already failed. Mr. Mays: Well, I’m going to do something crazy today. I’m going to withdraw my motion--I don’t nave a motion on the floor. Mr. Bridges: And then I’ll call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: We’ll move to the next item, then. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, so that we are consistent, a motion does not belong to the maker at this point. The motion has been made and seconded and the motion belongs to the [inaudible]. Mayor Young: The motion is to pave the road. The motion is to go out and pave the road. Mr. Mays: Without all the tentacles attached to it? Mayor Young: No tentacles. And we’ll call for the question at this time. All in favor of paving the road, please vote aye. (VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION) MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. COLCLOUGH AND MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 4-4-2. Mayor Young: Let’s move along to the order of the day. It doesn’t go back to committee and the road doesn’t get paved. Madame Clerk, Judge Hamrick is around here somewhere. Page 45 If we could go ahead and take that item up, No. 58. Marshal, would you check in the hallway and see if Judge Hamrick is out there. There he is. Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and take up Item 58. Clerk: Item 58: Motion to approve establishing base salary of all state court judges at $94,400.00. Approve annual cost-of-living increase to state court judges in order to maintain consistency between periodic pay increases granted to Richmond County Constitutional Officials and that of state court judges. Approve application of the same formula for state court judges that is used for these officials. The formula would be as follows: Whenever the employees in the classified service of the state merit system receive a cost- of-living increase or general performance based increase of a certain percentage or a certain amount, the base salary of all state court judges, whether set by local law or by the county governing authority, shall be increased by the same percentage or same amount applicable to said employees. If the cost-of- living increase or general performance based increase received by state employees is in different percentages or different amounts as to certain categories of employees, then said base salary of all state court judges shall be increased by a percentage or an amount not to exceed the average percentage or average amount of the general increase in salary granted to said employees. Mr. Powell: I move approval. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and second; any discussion among the Commissioners? All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. Clerk: Item 54. Mayor Young: Yes. Clerk: Item 54: Approve the submittal of the request for proposal for vehicle and equipment maintenance services. Mr. Handy: I’d like to make a motion to postpone this particular item until we get together to be able to talk about Page 46 it as a committee. All we did, went before the real committee which is four people, and I don’t know too much about it, whether I want to send it back out or bring it back in, as my vote, so I would like for it to be postponed at least until the next meeting so we can discuss it. Mr. Powell: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second to postpone this item to the next meeting. Mr. Oliver: The one thing I would note. Our current contract expires December 31 and I think that’s doable, but I want everybody to realize that that is extremely tight and it may require us to extend our current contract for a couple of weeks to bridge the gap, because of the schedule. Mr. Handy: The next meeting, we’re going to hear it and then we’ll be able to recommend. Mr. Oliver: So go back to committee is what you’re suggesting? Mr. Handy: Right. And then go to the Commission two weeks from today. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of postponing this item for two weeks, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MR. BEARD AND MR. H. BRIGAM OUT. MOTION CARRIES 6-2. Clerk: Item 55: Consider a request for relief from penalty and interest - Mr. George Locke McKnight - 2637 Walton Way. Mayor Young: Do we have a motion? Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Oliver: To be consistent, Mr. Mayor, I need to say this. I think waiving the penalty is one thing, but to be consistent to waive the interest I think is something that hasn’t historically been done before, because even if they didn’t get the notice, the individual had use of the money because they didn’t have to pay it, and to my knowledge since I’ve been here, you all have not ever waived interest. Page 47 Mayor Young: We have a motion. Mr. Oliver: My suggestion would be if you wish to consider that, that you waive the penalty and not the interest. Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor to waive both. Do we have a second for that? No second has been heard. Mr. Shepard: I make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we waive the penalty only. Mr. Powell: Second. Mayor Young: Motion to waive the penalty, and second. Any discussion? Mr. Bridges: I’d like to from North or Jim or anybody, this--in order to waive this, it’s my understanding from reading this we really couldn’t determine this was our fault, that apparently the property owner never notified us that he’d moved in that regard. What has been our practice in the past in situations like this? I mean I know we never waive the interest, we always the penalty, but to me in the past, if it’s been the property owner’s fault, then he bore the brunt of the penalty. I mean this was just a little new situation to me. I’m not real sure what we had done in the past. Mr. Wall: In the past, the policy has been to waive the penalty only in those situations where the error was made by the Tax Commissioner’s office or by the county. Now I can’t say that that policy has been applied 100 percent of the time. There have been times when it’s been questionable as to whether or not an error has been made and I think probably to some extent y’all have sided with the taxpayer in the situations where there was some question about it. Here there really is not any indication that this was anything other than a taxpayer error and was not an error made by the Tax Commissioner’s office, and I think in those situations generally you have denied the waiver of the penalty. Mr. Bridges: North, is that your assessment of it, too, that this is an error on the taxpayer’s part? Mr. Williamson: Let me very briefly tell you what happened here. This gentleman owned a piece of property and Page 48 resided on Peachtree Road. He bought a piece of property on Walton Way which required expensive remodeling. The tax bill went out during the remodeling period, unbeknownst to us, because we weren’t notified he had sold his Peachtree Road property. Mr. Bridges: Is that his responsibility to notify the tax department? Mr. Williamson: Definitely. And so we sent the bill to Peachtree Road. At that time, he was not living there. He wasn’t living at the Walton Way address either, for that matter. I don’t know where he was. But apparently the new property owner on Peachtree Road did not see to it that he got the bill for the Walton Way property, which is what this is all about. So we didn’t know where he was, to be perfectly honest. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Oliver: What is the Tax Commissioner’s office recommendation, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: What is your recommendation, Mr. Williamson? Mr. Williamson: My recommendation was that it appeared an error in the mailing address was the case of not being notified when the new address should have been applied to the account. Since it was not an intentional lapse on the part of the taxpayer, perhaps the penalty should be abated, if not in full at least partially. But here again, it does not meet the criteria for us to delete it or abate it. It’s a matter of what the Commission decides to do. Mayor Young: Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Williamson, we didn’t receive any kind of returned--no known person at this address or anything like that on this bill, did we? Mr. Williamson: I can’t say for sure. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Page 49 Mr. Shepard: One more question, North. Is it your recommendation that we not waive either penalty or interest? Waive nothing? Mr. Williamson: My position is if you’re going to have a policy, you ought to stick to it. To stick to it, we would not waive the penalty. Mr. Shepard: We would waive the interest? Mr. Williamson: No, no. Mr. Shepard: We wouldn’t waive either one then? Mr. Williamson: Not in this case. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m sympathetic to the taxpayer. We’re all taxpayers. We’d like to have these things waived. But I don’t think we can waive it for one person and not do it for every taxpayer that comes before us with the same problem, and I think to be consistent, based on what I’ve heard here today, I’m going to make the motion that we waive neither penalty nor interest. Mayor Young: I’m sorry, your motion again is to-- Mr. Bridges: To waive neither penalty nor interest. In other words, to deny. Mayor Young: To deny. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: To the tax office, in your recommendation, why wasn’t that put in here, to waive neither penalty nor interest, but when you’ve got here, to waive at least partially? Why didn’t you just say on your recommendations not to waive either one? Mayor Young: Just a minute. The chair is trying to get a second to a motion here. Is there a second to that motion? None has been heard. Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Page 50 Williamson, if you could respond to Mr. Colclough’s question, please. Mr. Williamson: Generally, we do recommend that nothing be done, but that’s not always been the case. Mr. Colclough: But you’re saying now that it’s a policy that we don’t waive anything, and it would make it much--from coming out of your office, if you say it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility and would say waive neither, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Mr. Williamson: The criteria for abating the penalty was outlined by the Commission. Mr. Colclough: I understand that, sir. Mr. Williamson: And this does not meet the criteria. Mr. Colclough: I understand that, sir. I’m just saying you could have said it doesn’t meet the criteria, don’t waive either the interest or the penalty. Mr. Williamson: We don’t normally waive interest anyway. Under any condition. Mayor Young: Further discussion? We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny any relief from the penalty and interest on this tax bill. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION) MR. KUHLKE AND MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. Mayor Young: The next item. Clerk: Item 56: Approve bid award to Harless Fire Equipment in the amount of $588,500 for one (1) 100-foot working height, aerial platform fire truck for the Augusta Fire Department. Mayor Young: Who wants to address that? Mr. Oliver: I think there’s someone here that wants to-- Mr. Siddall: We had a bid prepared and sent on the Page 51 street. We sent it out to about ten different manufacturers and received the bid specifications back from three. Of the three manufacturers, one did not have the proper aerial ladder platform and he was also the highest bidder, so we put him out of the bid process. Of the other two bidders, one had a steel ladder and an aluminum platform. The other had a steel ladder and a steel platform, which is what the original bid specifications were for. Of the two bids that were received, the vehicle offered by [inaudible] is definitely a cheaper vehicle, but our main concern in this process is not the cheapness of the price but the availability of equipment and getting the equipment here on a timely basis. Fleet Management doesn’t necessarily have a concern or a problem with the quality of the lower bid equipment. It’s just insofar as the availability of the equipment, the deliverability of the equipment, and the support that we could expect right now at this present time. From our standpoint, Fleet doesn’t particularly have a problem with the brand. It does have a problem with the deliverability and I would refer that back to the chief for his comments on that subject. Mayor Young: All right, chief. Chief Few: Thank you very much. I want to give you just a brief synopsis of how we actually get a piece of equipment purchasing out of department. And I don’t want you to think that I make the final decision on it, and I do make the final decision after all, but I do go through a process so that we can get the very best piece of equipment and one that’s very user friendly toward the fire fighters. So what we have is a research and development committee within our department, and which Mr. [inaudible] is a member of. The problem that I have with this, there’s a couple of them. First of all, that we bid out for an all-steel ladder and he did not bid an all- steel ladder. Secondly, I’m just not familiar with the piece of equipment that he actually bid. And in that research and development committee, they look at every portion of that ladder and they build site bids on every one of them, and I never got an opportunity to do that. Also, he provided me with a reference list. And I checked the references out because this is somewhat of a new company. I never heard a lot about them. And I called some of the people that he gave me references. They don’t even know, either. They didn’t know what trucks he was talking about. Now I want to say this, that in the past when we bid out equipment for this department, when I first come here to this department, you told me that you didn’t have a lot of money. And that we didn’t have money to purchase equipment. And when you told me that, I said I’ll find out ways to get that piece of Page 52 equipment, the equipment that we need in the department, but at the same time I want to do quality pieces of equipment in this city. Right now I need a platform truck available, right now. I need it tomorrow. I don’t have an abundance of equipment. In fact, we’ve got a ladder down now. We have some trucks that actually I wouldn’t, for safety reasons, we need a new aerial truck and we don’t have any extras now. In the shop, we have our trucks in the shop now. I need a piece of equipment right away. But the thing that bothers me the most about this particular one is that when a gentleman works on the committee and the committee comes up and finds this finding that that’s the piece of equipment that we need to purchase in our department, and the only direction I give to them is that it has to be the right transmission, the right motor on that piece of equipment, and it has to be one that fit the needs of the department, and we come up with one, I would not like for people to come against what the recommendations are out of that board and them come back and say I’m going to bid something else on that particular truck. Mr. [inaudible] uses C-grades and I thought that maybe perhaps he bid C-grade. I don’t like when people bid a piece of equipment and then come back later on and tell me that they forgot to put the compartments in and it’s going to cost me another $12,000. Because what you’re saying to me is that you are bidding low and then come back and then you add some other pieces of equipment on. And for that reason alone, I don’t like to accept a bid that comes in and it’s wrong. Cause that’s like--I mean how do you forget compartments? If you’re going to forget compartments, what else are you going to forget inside of a bid? We got to have some way to put equipment on a truck and I thought that was a major part of it. I just don’t like the fact that we take a bid from someone who bid very low and then come back and say I need an addendum to that, also, after the bid has already been opened. Mr. Speaker: We made a mistake. Chief Few: In the past, we’ve ordered some trucks that were pumpers in this department. We ordered some very good ones. Five other municipalities got on that bid and they bought trucks. Because we did a very good bid. We bought Italian vehicles in this department. We bought some of the very good Italian cheap vehicles and in addition to that, it was one that was user-friendly toward the battalion chief, and I was just so glad that I saw in the magazine that I knew we were on the cutting edge, but then I go back and look in the magazine and I see that now other cities are now using the same type of vehicles that we use. I got some trucks down there that cost me quite a bit. I got one aerial truck right Page 53 now that cost me $43,000 a year just to maintain it, just to keep it on the road every day. I want to buy a quality truck that we can feel proud of. And I don’t know how a person can come back and bid after, and be on the committee and face his coworkers and say that this is the right truck to buy. We have no history with this particular truck. There’s not very many I know in the Southeast. I’ve checked it out. And for that reason alone, I would not like to see us buy a truck like that. We have looked at it. The committee has come up in the department and said this is the particular truck that we’d like to see in our department. The maintenance records on our [inaudible] trucks that we have in service now that you’ve bought in the past years, the ‘87s, have tremendous service records. They are very good. The other ones are terrible. I have another truck sitting down at fire headquarters down there. It’s not very user friendly toward the firefighter either. It’s an aerial piece of equipment. We’ve probably got to take that one out of service because it’s even danger to the guy to the back, to the rear of it. I have not made a mistake since I’ve been here on aerial equipment or pumpers in this department, and I don’t want to do it now. We need to have a quality truck for this community, one that will serve our community, and not some that somebody bids afterwards and comes back and tell us, we’ll come back and say that we need compartments and it’s going to cost us another $12,000. Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to go back to the agenda item. I think, and Chief Few and the person who can speak to this can speak to this, but the Chief expresses his concerns related to the few, if any, number of trucks like this that are in the Eastern part, Southeastern part of the United States, regarding the concern for technical support. Then he goes on to talk about the steel platform. And that, I guess the biggest thing that comes to my mind is the delivery schedule on this is 10 to 12 months. However, they’re indicating that perhaps they can get it in six to eight, where the other one firm that we’re talking about working with is 30 to 45 days. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Thank you. If I could ask the chief some questions. So what you’re saying, Chief, is that the low bid is not the best bid in your opinion? Chief Few: No, it’s not. Page 54 Mr. Bridges: And in the Committee’s opinion? Chief Few: And not in the Committee’s opinion. Mr. Bridges: What about the time delivery? Is that a factor in this as well? Chief Few: That is also a factor. If I could put that truck in service today, had I not had to take another truck last week, I wouldn’t had the piece of equipment--I had a wreck on it because there were some problems with the steering column. I need a piece of aerial equipment tomorrow, if I could get it. But 30 days is a reasonable amount of time. I know that these are 12, 14 months. That’s what normally they take to build, but I need one now and I’m asking anybody to have one come off the line to let us know about it. I even talked to a lot of people about that. If there’s one that comes off the line. Mr. Bridges: I’ll make the motion we approve the request here, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Handy: Second. Mayor Young: Recommendation from the Chief. Mr. LePan has indicated he’d like to address the Commission, so Mr. LePan, if you’ll come up and identify yourself and give us your address, please, for the record. Mr. LaPan: My name is Mel LaPan. My address is 4912 Cavan Place, Grovetown, Georgia. I’d like to address a couple of items brought up by the Chief. In no way am I here to make waves or anything of that nature. The user list that the Chief mentions is a user list for the aerial device, not for the brand of trucks that I’m representing, which is [inaudible]. That list represents only the aerial device portion of the truck, which is used by four different manufacturers. There are eight currently in service in the state of Georgia and there are 29 in service throughout the Southeast, and I mean Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The committee that the Chief said I’m a member of, this is true. The committee that I’m a member, if I’m not a member any more it wasn’t brought to my attention. Mayor Young: Let’s stick to the issue of the bid, please. Page 55 Mr. LaPan: I never met about an aerial truck. I just want to clarify that. I never met about an aerial devise for the department. The delivery time that we discussed is six to eight months. The price adjustment I will let Mr. Bob Colter speak on that. He has flown down. He is a representative of the factory. He can discuss that further. The unfamiliarity in this area with this part, that is true. I was asked a total of two questions by the department. The two questions were the parts turnaround time for RK aerial, which is the aerial devise that is used. The parts turnaround time after receipt of order is same or next day. Spartan chassis parts turnaround time is next day. The problem that I’m having is that our bid after the price adjustment, which there definitely was a price adjustment, is $67,000 below the price of the nearest competitor. There has been no meeting. I have said we are available to speak on the subject, and the only thing in addition to the two questions, I did provide a user list, but at this point, the only two questions that have been asked were parts turnaround time. We provide service. We’re located, offices in Grovetown and we’re now currently working to move into a facility in Augusta, a truck repair facility in the neighborhood of November of this year. All I’m asking for is the chance to do fair business. Just because an item is not known to everybody in the area it doesn’t mean that it’s not a good piece of equipment. The City of Des Moines, Iowa has 27 of these units in front-line service and two currently on order. All I would ask for is the opportunity to discuss the item further in fairness to my company and the product. If no one has any objection to it, I can field some questions or Mr. Colter from the plant can field some questions. Mayor Young: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. LaPan? Mr. Powell: Yes. Mayor Young: Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Mr. LaPan, we are talking about two different animals here. One has an aluminum ladder, the one that you represent, and the one that the Chief is recommending has a steel ladder. Mr. LaPan: That’s not correct. Both ladders are steel. Both ladders are warranted for 20 years. The difference being the basket structure on the device that I’m offering, it’s constructed of high-strength aluminum. Mr. Powell: Is the load-carrying capacity of the Page 56 aluminum basket the same as the steel basket? Mr. LaPan: Yes. Weight about 1,000 pounds. And there are different load configurations. Everyone in the basket, flowing water, men evenly space on the ladder, there are different, at different times the load capacity can be different. Mr. Powell: I understand that, but is it--does it meet or exceed the steel? Mr. LaPan: Yes. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Two questions before Mr. LaPan leaves. What is your current employment status? Mr. LaPan: I am the owner of [inaudible] Fire Equipment. I am a member of the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. And I’m also owner of another local business in Richmond County. Mr. Mays: Before we go any further, and I think, Mr. Mayor, I personally would like to have a legal clarification. I feel almost as uncomfortable in this situation as I did in my committee meeting last week, and which I’m a member of Public Safety, in reference to an ordinance situation being proposed by someone that we’re doing with and a vendor. Now I know that is says in reference to public officials, but Mr. Wall or Mr. Oliver, where are we standing on this where we’ve got an employee that’s also representing a company in a vendorship and at the same time serving on a committee to select equipment? And I’d really to get that answer, Mr. Mayor, before we move any further in this discussion? Because I’ve got a serious problem with that even being on board period. Mayor Young: All right. Let’s see. Mr. Oliver: Mr. Wall went to look that up. I will say this, up until this time I thought that he no longer worked for the Fire Department, to be candid. Mayor Young: Mr. Wall is consulting his legal advisor back there. Ms. Sams: [inaudible] Page 57 Mayor Young: Could you come up to the microphone, Geri, so we can get all of this on the record? Ms. Sams: I know in his bid documentation, he has signed as being owner of the company, and with Purchasing, we were not aware that he was also a firefighter. If we had known that prior to the bid, he would have been eliminated from the process. Mr. Wall: I agree with that. He should not be allowed. Ms. Sams: And I want to call to your attention, too, the Purchasing Department would, had to accept the $508,000 bid which at that time when we accepted the bid, he was not in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion that we are dealing with a moot issue. If that’s in violation, I think we should move to the best bid process and end this whole scenario. Mayor Young: We already have a motion. Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion that we end it and deal with the best bid. Mr. Beard: I second it. Mr. Oliver: There’s a motion on the floor. Mr. Mays: There’s one to do that but it does not discuss the point of this being a situation where there is a conflict. If that’s in violation of procurement procedure, then it’s more than just accepting the best bid. That bid, if it’s in violation of procurement procedure, and I beg anybody’s pardon to automatically disqualifies it from even being on this floor. Mr. Beard: I second it. Mayor Young: I believe that’s correct, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: I’ll add it, no problem. I just think that needs to be in there, cause we don’t need to see this anywhere else that we dropped it because of equipment and money. That’s a violation from the word go, and we ought not even waste the time to even deal with it. Mr. Handy: I’ll accept it as an amendment, Mr. Mayor. Page 58 Mayor Young: All right. Could the Clerk please state for us what the motion is then and we’ll go ahead and take the vote? Clerk: The motion is to approve the recommendation of the Fire Department for the bid award to Harless Fire Equipment in the amount of $588,500 with the amendment to make this a moot point and move to the best bid process. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you’ll move ahead, please. Clerk: Item 59: Consider sponsorship request from CSRA Classic Inc. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we sponsor this event at the Level 6, Classic Corporate Supporter. It’s $1,000. We’ve done similar things for the library and also I think this has been the recipient of some CVB funds and I think that would be an appropriate demonstration of support for this worthy community event. Mr. Handy: Second. Mr. Oliver: There’s $3,080.97 in the Commission-Other account. Mr. Shepard: There’s a $1,000 less, because that’s where I seek the funding from, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Powell: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we take it out of the Mayor’s fund. Mayor Young: The chair rules that out of order. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Clerk: Item 60: Appoint voting delegate and alternate for Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) Fall Policy Conference, September 30, 1999. Page 59 Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to nominate Jerry Brigham since he’s an officer of that organization. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Okay, you want to go ahead and nominate an alternate at the same time? Mr. Handy: I’ll nominate Mr. Mays at the alternate. Mayor Young: All right, we have a motion for Mr. Brigham as the primary delegate and Mr. Mays as the alternate. If everyone would please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Clerk: Item 61: Appoint voting delegate and alternate for Georgia Municipal Association’s (GMA) Pre-Legislative Conference, October 7. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: I would like to nominate Mr. Handy. He is a member of that board also. Mayor Young: Okay. And do you have an alternate. Mr. Beard: Whoever is going. Mr. Brigham, are you going? Mr. J. Brigham: I hadn’t planned on going to that one. Mayor Young: How about Henry? Mr. Henry Brigham, are you going to GMA? th Mr. H. Brigham: That’s on the 7 of October? Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: Then Mr. Henry Brigham. Mayor Young: Then all in favor of Mr. Handy as the delegate and Mr. Henry Brigham as the alternate, please vote aye. Page 60 MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Clerk: Item 62: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 4 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code entitled “Boards and Authorities” so as to prohibit membership on multiple Boards, to provide qualifications for members, to provide for removal for failure to attend meetings; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. Mr. Wall: This is an ordinance that I drafted as a result of the instructions at the last Commission meeting. In essence, this would replace the current Code section dealing with appointments to multiple boards and it would prohibit any one individual from being appointed to more than one permanent board, and I added the word permanent there because you do have temporary committees that are appointed from time to time and this would not preclude you from appointing someone to a temporary board or a commission. It might be appointed for a specific purpose and for a limited time frame. And then it would also obligate a prospective appointee to list the boards and commissions that he may be a member of so that that information is available and then the Clerk would notify each appointee of the obligation only to serve on one board. It would provide a transition period of 30 days after final adoption of this ordinance for an individual to resign from one or more boards. I guess it would just be one, I don’t know that we have anybody on more than two boards, but to resign from one and to choose the one that he would remain. In the event that he did not respond within that 30-day period, then he would be removed from the one to which he was last appointed. This also makes it in the form of a qualification to serve so that you are only qualified if you’re not currently a member of another board or commission. It also puts in a removal process in the event that a member misses three consecutive meetings without good cause. Then that board would then recommend to this Commission that he be removed. The process that’s incorporated is the same process for any removal, and that is that he would be given notice, he would have the opportunity to appear before this Commission, and then you would ultimately be the body that would remove him or her from a board or a commission in the event that they are unexcused absences. I might mention that the Aviation Commission meeting this morning, a question came up concerning what is good cause. And as I told them, I did not define that, leaving that up to each board and committee to decide as to their members whether or not an excuse was a justified Page 61 excuse. There was some concern that you needed to define what was good cause and what was not good cause. I still maintain that that ought to be up to each individual board. I don’t know what some of you may deem to be good cause for a particular member to miss. You’ve got different individuals on different boards. I think it would be hard to write a universal rule, but that was a comment that was made at the Aviation Commission when they asked to be briefed on this. And I don’t know whether any of you feel likewise, but I would point out that good cause is not defined here and it’s up to each board to decide whether or not in their mind a member is absent for good cause, such that he would fall into the three consecutive meeting category. And let me mention something, we talk about three consecutive meetings. Some commissions and boards have more called meetings than others, and so they could get caught in that trap. And again, good cause may just be in adequate notice in some people’s minds. I don’t know whether that’s something that you want to get into or not. Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, this would address existing conflicts? There’s no grandfathering with this ordinance, is there? Mr. Wall: The only grandfathering is a period of 30 days. At the end of 30 days, they would have to choose or a process would be instituted. Mayor Young: Any questions? Mr. Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: What about non-voting members of some of these boards? Is that the same? Mr. Wall: No. As far as this commission or the Mayor appointing some of you to serve as non-voting members of boards, this does not eliminate your being allowed to continue to serve as a liaison to that board of commission. Mr. H. Brigham: The three meetings prevail at that point? Mr. Wall: No, three meetings does not affect you ten Commissioners. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Henry’s right on the point, but what I was thinking about, you know, Henry, in Washington they debated what is meant, and here I was wondering what member meant. But Jim, in 1.4.1(b), shouldn’t we put in there voting member Page 62 to make it clear? I know we have your interpretation and I know somebody could remember it, but I probably couldn’t, so wouldn’t it be more clear to put should a voting member fail to attend? And that would take care of all of us who are ex- officio, and I think that was Mr. Brigham’s concern. Mr. Wall: It would. Mayor Young: Good suggestion. Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Jim, what about are we limited by Legislative appointment to a board? In other words, if the Legislature appoints a person to a board and I want to appoint that same person to another board and that’s the only appointment the Commission makes of that person to another board, is that allowable? Mr. Wall: It would not be. Because again, the way it’s worded, which I understood to be your intent, is that this is a qualification to serve. So that if they are a member, then they are not qualified to serve on another board. Mr. Bridges: I don’t think the Legislative body should tie our hands from appointing members to people that we want on the board. I would like to see that, the deletion of that limit included in the ordinance. I mean that would be my thinking. I welcome what my other colleagues would have to say, but I don’t think we should--this should just apply strictly to this body, this Commission here, and that should be the limiting factor, not the Legislative delegation. Mayor Young: Back to Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d move we send this back to the attorney to do a little more work to address Mr. Bridges’ concerns about the Legislative conflict, and also I don’t know that we ought to unseat anybody off the boards that we presently have. I’m worried about the grandfathering issue. There’s no grandfathering issue right now. Plus my personal opinion is you should have voting member in 1.4.1(b) so I would make a motion to send it back to the lawyer for further technical changes. Mr. Oliver: It think the one thing of sending it back to Mr. Wall is fine, but I think what he needs to know is the consensus of direction to know whether you all want--if you support Mr. Bridges in that the delegation shouldn’t be a limiting factor, for example, and also my understanding was Page 63 the same as Mr. Wall’s that the 30 day transition period--and if you want to make it so that they can fill out the remainder of their unexpired term-- Mayor Young: Let’s see if we can get a second to send it back to the attorney. Mr. Handy: I second. Mayor Young: We have a second for that. Now, Mr. Jerry Brigham indicated he wanted to speak and then we’ll come back down this way. Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to be honest with you. I think if we’re going to eliminate the Legislative appointments, we might as well go on and double appoint. I think that that’s part of what the process is. I think what the rules are being written for is to include the largest number of people possible, and if you’re going to start eliminations on there, I think we ought to just leave it alone like it is. If we’re going to make changes, I fully concur that we need to have just single appointments. We have a lot of good people appointed by a lot of different people, to a lot of various boards. But we also have a number of people that have been appointed over the years to almost ever board in this government at one time or another, while they were serving on other boards. And I think that if we’re going to look for new leadership in Augusta, we need to look to our boards and authorities. This is where people can learn about how government operates, and I think we need as wide as possible. Mayor Young: Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: I don’t think we should start with the grandfathering, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Brigham. We need to look at this and include as many people--if you would just look at the list of the talent bank this year that we received in there, I think you’d understand that there are a lot of people who want to serve on boards and invariably, as I look over these commissions and boards, I see the same names popping up over and over again, and there is no need for that in this county. So I think that we should get the largest amount of people that we can and get more people involved. And people have indicated through their application on the talent bank that they want to perform, and I think we ought to give them that opportunity. And I think it should begin with 30 days. Page 64 Mayor Young: Mr. Powell, did you have your hand up? Mr. Powell: I yield. Mayor Young: Mr. Wall. Mr. Wall: May I ask for some input as far as the good cause? Is it the feeling that you want me to try to define what is good cause? Mr. Beard: Not really. I think it should be left up to the board. We’re not that familiar with the boards. Mayor Young: So we have a motion on the floor to send it back to Mr. Wall and that has been duly seconded. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Mayor Young: And I would suggest to the Commissioners that prior to our next session when we deal with this, if you have some specific thoughts or input on what’s in your agenda packet, please share that with Mr. Wall so he can incorporate that in the document he brings back. Next item. Clerk: Item 63: Rescind the July 20 appointment of Ms. Deanna Williams to the Region 12 Board. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Beard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Clerk: Item 64: Consider appointment of (1) one of the following to the Region 12 MHMRSA Board due to the expiration of terms of Ms. Mary Jane Shirey. A. Mr. Sam Sibley B. Ms. Sharon E. Samuels C. Mr. John A. Sherman Page 65 Mr. Kuhlke: I move for Mr. Sam Sibley. Mr. J. Brigham: I move the nominations be closed. Mr. H. Brigham: Is that a motion? I second the motion. Mayor Young: Which motion did you second? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Sibley. Mayor Young: Sam Sibley. Okay. Any other? All in favor of Mr. Sibley. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Does Sam Sibley meet the criteria of the qualifications for the particular board? Mr. Kuhlke: What are they? Mr. Beard: That’s what Mr. Jim is going to tell us right now. Mr. Wall: He is not a member of the regional board. Mr. Kuhlke: This is the Sam Sibley that runs the Hale House? Mr. Wall: Right. Mayor Young: The attorney indicates he does meet the requirements so we’ll call the question on Mr. Sibley’s nomination, his appointment, please to the Mental Health Board. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Mr. Beard: What’s wrong with your abstention, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’ll put it on the record. My law firm had negotiations with the contract for the executive director and I think it would be appropriate for me to abstain on both these votes. Clerk: Item 66: Consider contract with the City of Hephzibah for the purchase of water. Page 66 Mr. Bridges: Move for approval. Mr. Powell: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Beard: How much it going to cost us? Mr. Oliver: This is a contract that’s 90 cents a thousand gallons. The contract is in the same form as the agreement we use with Columbia County, with the names being changed and the sewer provision taken out. Mr. Beard: No problem. Mayor Young: All in favor, vote aye. Mr. Powell: Why did they take the sewer provision out? Mr. Oliver: Because we’re not providing that service at this point. Mr. Powell: But if we’re going to do the agreement, why not include it? We probably will one day. Mr. Wall: There’s some ongoing negotiations as far as the sewer in concerned. There’s a school there that we’re waiting on some engineering reports back, but I think that needs to be dealt with separately. Mayor Young: Anybody else want to vote. I’ve already called the question. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Clerk: Item 67: Consider formation of Citizens Committee to recommend and prioritize Phase IV Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Projects (SPLOST). Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, you want to speak to this, please? Mr. Oliver: Let me give a broad brush overview on this. We’re proposing that there be a 21-person committee established, that the committee consist of two people appointed by each one of the Commissioners, from every Page 67 district, and one appointed by the Mayor to give us an odd number. The purpose of this is to give broad input into prioritizing projects, which this is not an easy task, just internally, and we are not at this point ready to share that list. We don’t have it finalized, but I think our requests are going to exceed $400 million. We anticipate that collections will be about $150 million. So prioritizing this list will be essential. We believe that the committee will give us a broader base of support to go to the citizens to pass the sales tax, and I think the committee will better understand the difficulty that you all have in prioritizing theses projects. We’re going to ask if you all favorably consider the committee that the committee set a criteria first before they start looking at each individual project. We would expect that the criteria consist of mandatory needed and then desirable projects. We think that operating costs need to be taken into account, as well as the number of individuals that will be served or will benefit from this, and this is just one of several vehicles that can be used to prioritize the sales tax. Mr. Beard: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: My question is Jim, whether or not we can have any involvement of the sales tax as the Commission or appointing, just giving it to someone and then in turn letting them pick who they want to work on it? Mr. Wall: Well, this committee would not be involved in promoting the passage of it. I think that’s clear. They cannot be. The only thing they’re involved in is evaluating the projects, coming up with a recommended capital improvement plan that would be a part of the referendum. But they should not be involved in any promotion of the passage of the referendum. Mr. Oliver: And they will bring back the recommendations to this body, who will formally approve whatever we go on. Mr. Beard: We got caught in there last time. And that’s why I brought it up. Page 68 Mayor Young: Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr. Oliver, I have one question for you here. In regards to the sales tax and our water and sewer plan that we’ve been promising the public that we’re coming back with, by going ahead and forming your committee to prioritize projects before that plan comes back, am I reading between the lines that we’re not going to use any sales tax funding for them water and sewer, is going to be your recommendation? Mr. Oliver: No, that’s not true. Obviously it would be nice to have that plan in place now. We have to remember that there are only three dates next year that work for the sales tax. March, July, and September are the only three dates that work. This is going to be an ongoing process and we’re hopeful to have that information by the end of the year from [inaudible] but they need to get that information to it as quickly as possible. I see that being a very critical need to our community, but I think when they come back with their plan I think it’s going to include a number of different techniques for paying for those improvements. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have, I think one of the problems we often have in government is an under-utilization of valuable resources, namely citizens. I do have something that I think I personally would like to maybe have clarified. Maybe this is something we can fine tune as we go along. I have no problem with a serious advisory committee that we will take stock in and to get input from after certain parameters are put together, be it public hearings, etc., but I’m wondering where we’re going into the balance of delegation here. You’re talking about a tax that goes onto a written ballot, and are we voting whole-hog today on delegating? How far in terms of the authority range are we talking about, with the citizens panel or setting up the deeming of priorities, what goes on, what doesn’t, are you looking down the road at having various workshops, sales taxes, very delicate in terms of what we experience that many time. What goes on, what doesn’t go on. What we may want may be something we cannot fund. I’m not knocking it before it gets off the ground, but I think there should be some balance in there when you put a written tax out on a ballot and you do a total delegating of putting that together. Now I think you always have had the basic groups whether somebody opposed something or even if you had a support group that was working. But I think to put that together and leave it in that manner, we need to think real Page 69 hard about that in terms of what type of long-arm authority are you going to basically give that group? You’re talking about 21 folks. We had one that we paid that we got messed up enough on. We got ten that in times we can’t deal with. You’re talking about putting 21 others together. If that’s to be put out on a ballot that’s locked in, written in stone, that’s something that can’t be waived like we want to. I just would like to see us maybe not set all of that authority today. I think putting that together is a fine idea, but I think we need to decide how far and how far reaching the boundaries of that group are going to go before we hand that over, because you’re talking about a tax that’s on for five years and put into the place of written ballot. Then that’s a lot of authority to hand over that you’re entrusted by law and take an oath to do. Like I say, I don’t have a problem with an advisory group, but I think we need to have a little bit more discussion on where it’s going to go and how far it’s going to go than we hand over to any group, even if we’re doing the appointment. That’s just personal opinion. I’m not knocking the group, but I just thing we need to have a little bit more discussion of how far we’re willing to go. Mr. Oliver: Remember this is an advisory group and their recommendation would come back to you, but I’m also cognizant of the fact when you set up a group, you have to pay attention to what they say. Mayor Young: Any further discussion. Mr. Mays: My big ears were listening while you were talking about deeming some authority there where they set certain priorities, and that’s where I’m saying if you put that in there today, then I’ve got a problem with it. Mayor Young: Mr. Handy. Mr. Handy: Yes, I’ve got one other question. Are we going to have this tax on a special election or what’s wrong with November election next year? Mr. Oliver: November is too late because your sales tax collection-- Mr. Handy: I mean next November. Mr. Oliver: That date does not work. It has to be 80 days before the date of [inaudible] so it would have to occur in either March, July or September. There has not been a decision made on the date yet and it goes back to what Mr. Page 70 Powell said. If it’s March, we’ve got a lot of work to do quickly. Mr. Handy: I understand. Mr. Powell: Work fast. Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor. It’s been duly seconded. All in favor of the motion of forming the Citizens Committee, please vote aye. MR. MAYS NOT VOTING. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: And Mr. Oliver, when would you like to have these names into the Clerk’s office? Mr. Oliver: I’d like to try to have them by the end of the month, if possible. Mayor Young: By the end of September? Mr. Oliver: That will give you some time, because it’s going to take some orientation to orient the needs of the community and also to provide an opportunity to get them some information, because there is an educational process to this so that they can make knowledgeable recommendation. Mr. Beard: One question, Mr. Mayor. Are we going to have people--no, we can’t have anyone with them? Mr. Oliver: No, sir. Mr. Beard: Who is going to guide them, give them criteria of what to be involved in this? Mr. Wall: Staff can be involved in this. Mr. Beard: Okay, that’s what I wanted. Mayor Young: Let’s see, we had an additional item that the attorney wanted. A lease agreement? Mr. Wall: We have had in place for a number of years in the former city an agreement with the Thompson brothers for land that is part of the Big Farm. We have held back in renewing the lease because of the Constructed Wetlands and that part of the farm that they are proposing to rent is going Page 71 to be a part of the construction area. However, there is 172 acres that we want to lease, recommending lease to them through December 31. We do have a provision in there that we can terminate upon seven days’ notice with also a provision that we will not be responsible for any loss of crop, etc. The Thompson brothers need this lease, is the reason it’s added on. They have a deadline to get it in of September 9, insofar as some of the crop programs that are available to them, and so that is the reason it was added on and we recommend an approval. It’s 172 acres at $15 an acre, which is the price that we’ve been using, which would be $1,505, and this is for a seven month period. This would go back and cover from June 1, which was the expiration of the earlier lease, but it tries to pick up that entire period. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Wall, is that a fair market value for the lease of that land? Mr. Wall: Yes. Now I have not done any research on the price. $15 an acre for the farm land is what we have been utilizing, and with all the constraints that go into this, the fact that we could go in there with a bulldozer and start tearing it up, I think it’s probably a good price. Mayor Young: All right. Any discussion? Any questions? All in favor, please vote aye. I’m sorry. Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: Didn’t we have the same kind of lease agreement with the property across the river? $15? Mr. Wall: The $15 price that was being proposed on the property that the airport was planning to acquire and lease back, that same $15 a month rent was used and that figure came from the Thompson lease, which is really the only farmland that we have that we’re leasing out. So that was the basis for that price, yes. Mr. Colclough: If I wanted to start a farm, I can go to an agency and lease farmland for $15 an acre? Mr. Wall: The Big Farm was donated to the City of Augusta by the State Legislature. It’s the old Gracewood Farm, as you’re probably aware of, so it’s not usual for a county government or a city government to have farmland that’s Page 72 for lease. And so that’s the rate that was put on it. Mayor Young: Just another service of your city government. Mr. Kuhlke: But $15 an acre for row crop is about the right price. You go to cotton, is about $25 an acre. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of this lease, please vote aye. MR. BEARD OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, I think we’ve come to your agenda item. Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, I have two items I would like to add. Both of them involve the file of potential litigation and I would like to add both of those to the legal meeting. Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes of stated in the book under items 68 A through E, plus a new F, to be pending litigation. Potential litigation. Make it F and G. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BEARD AND MR. KUHLKE NOT VOTING. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. (LEGAL MEETING, 4:55 - 5:54 P.M.) Mayor Young: The next item on the agenda, Madame Clerk? Clerk: Item 69: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’ Open Meetings Act. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Page 73 Mayor Young: Are there any items to add to the agenda? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Mayor Young: We are adjourned without objection. (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:55 P.M.) Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on September 7, 1999. Clerk of Commission